George Osborne’s concern for the poor should fool no one
|
Version 0 of 1. George Osborne’s appeal to Labour MPs to support his planned benefit cuts (Calling all progressives: help us reform the welfare state, 20 July) is based on a series of false premises and misleading claims. Two in particular are highly revealing about Osborne’s character and motives: Related: Calling all progressives: help us reform the welfare state | George Osborne His claim that the government’s welfare reforms have delivered progressive ends is simply wrong. Their impact has been capricious and unfair. Wealthy pensioners have been entirely exempt from any reductions in entitlements, while the bedroom tax hits thousands of low-income working-age households who, because of disability or family obligations, need a bedroom more than they are deemed to require. Osborne also conveniently overlooks the impact of his own government’s policies in pushing up welfare spending. The steep rent increases imposed in 2010 on housing associations and councils, together with greater dependence on private lettings for those in housing need, have led inevitably to higher housing benefit expenditure. Blaming and penalising the victims of his own decisions is one of the least attractive characteristics of this chancellor. While Osborne’s belated recognition of the need for a living wage is welcome, no one should be fooled by his otherwise deeply cynical political agenda.Nick RaynsfordFormer MP for Greenwich and Woolwich • While history does not exactly repeat itself, I was struck by the similarity of the language used by George Osborne and that of the reformers who introduced the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. They both express a strange concern for the poor, as both worry that wage support, provided by the Speenhamland system and tax credits, encourages idleness. The Benthamite politicians of that period believed that people’s preference for pleasure would encourage them to idleness, as they knew the parish would always make up their wages to prevent them from going hungry. Not so very different from today’s welfare reformers who see state benefits acting as a similar disincentive to work. Both Lord Grey’s reformers and George Osborne and his colleagues believe that only by treating the poor harshly will they have an incentive to work. In 1834 it was the workhouse, whereas today it is the cruel benefits system, with its many sanctions, which – like the workhouse – is intended to discourage all but the most desperate from applying for help. What they also have in common is a need to dress up a cruel policy designed primarily to provide relief for the rate-/tax-payer as a policy of compassion towards the poor. Do these politicians in some Freudian sense need to lie to themselves to avoid having to admit the reality of their policies?Derrick JoadLeeds • George Osborne claims that “the consent of the taxpayer” should be the arbiter of a government’s action. When I was young, I could not believe (my parents took the Daily Mail and the Telegraph) how the government could push the 1957 Homicide Act restricting capital punishment to five specific types of murder through parliament against the will of the people. It was not until 11 years later that it was abolished, and only in 1998 was it finally outlawed completely to bring Britain in line with the European convention on human rights. Again, if the consent of the taxpayer had been heeded, I doubt if homosexuality would have been partially legalised in 1967. On this issue the gradual progress towards complete equality took many stages over many years, hard-fought all the way. Sometimes parliament has to be the leader of public opinion, rather than using the views of the selfish or unthinking majority as a cloak for inhumane decisions.Susan TrippLondon • It is the duty of the opposition to oppose (Osborne urges Labour to back welfare plans, 20 July). Otherwise we may as well have a one-party state. Osborne’s budget takes money from the poor so as to give to the rich. (Shades of Louis XIV’s France, when aristocrats were exempt from tax.) Restricting benefits to two children is punishing children, especially those of the poorest families. Suppose a woman with one child discovers she is having twins or triplets. May I remind readers that in 1947, the ratio of national debt was 2.47 times GDP. This did not stop Attlee from nationalising all our major industries and setting up the NHS. Furthermore, the ratio of debt to GDP declined every year. The opposite of our present government’s achievement.Ross RandallRichmond upon Thames • Reading Mr Osborne’s article made me remember that I felt betrayed by the Lib Dems when they signed up to the coalition. However, after three months of Tory government policies I realise the Lib Dems must have had some considerable impact, and I’m beginning to wish they were still there.David LundWinscombe, Somerset • Could future appearances by George Osborne in your pages only be allowed if approved by over 40% of readers on a 50% turnout ballot with a 14-day notice period, allowing people like me to opt out of that proportion of their £1.80 which has gone towards his fee, please?Mike HineKingston upon Thames |