Some thoughts on Social Security and Labour's pledge to be harsher than the Tories.
Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief
Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support
(from The Guardian)
Labour. Party of the people. Well, as long as they are working people and not benefit scum. Because clearly, the way to get ahead in UK politics is to hammer the underclass as hard as possible while pledging oaths to Santa that you'll do it even harder next time.
Now, as a fiscal conservative, I do believe that those who really are scroungers should indeed be hammered as far as is practical - but not to the point that the system becomes completely unusable for those it's actually supposed to help. There's also the valid argument that paying a certain amount of "scrounger money" keeps those who really don't want to work out of crime, and helps maintain social order. A close check needs to be kept and those who really are abusing the system (e.g. working on the side while claiming) need to be hounded out, but there's a dangerous attitude developing out there in society that seems to think anyone who's living on benefits isn't really part of society and shouldn't be allowed to have things like entertainment or any luxuries, but should instead live a monk-like existence of purity and piety to the state. Which is a complete negation of the whole concept of "social security".
Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support
(from The Guardian)
Labour. Party of the people. Well, as long as they are working people and not benefit scum. Because clearly, the way to get ahead in UK politics is to hammer the underclass as hard as possible while pledging oaths to Santa that you'll do it even harder next time.
Now, as a fiscal conservative, I do believe that those who really are scroungers should indeed be hammered as far as is practical - but not to the point that the system becomes completely unusable for those it's actually supposed to help. There's also the valid argument that paying a certain amount of "scrounger money" keeps those who really don't want to work out of crime, and helps maintain social order. A close check needs to be kept and those who really are abusing the system (e.g. working on the side while claiming) need to be hounded out, but there's a dangerous attitude developing out there in society that seems to think anyone who's living on benefits isn't really part of society and shouldn't be allowed to have things like entertainment or any luxuries, but should instead live a monk-like existence of purity and piety to the state. Which is a complete negation of the whole concept of "social security".