Friday 18 April 2014

Religion and the war on the poor

In Easter week it's appropriate that the focus should be on Christianity.  David Cameron's Easter message, his declaration that he is a Christian in a Christian country and his mini-sermon, has drawn scornful comments.  But most of the journalists who have been cynical about it are atheists, and so while they are right in many respects they miss the point.
Cameron, along with Duncan Smith, is under fire from the leaders of all the mainstream Christian churches.  They first wrote to try to draw his attention to the misery which his policies were causing to individual people, real people.  IDS's response to his own church's leader was, "He's wrong; I wish he'd talked to me first."  There's no way through that insane arrogance.  Cameron waffled about having a moral mission.  The church leaders have written again.  And that's what has brought on the sermon about the big society.  Neither he nor IDS ever address what the churches are saying about the real cases of hardship.  Is Cameron trying to set himself up as an alternative focus of Christian authority?  Is he trying to appease the Tory shires church-goers who loathe gay marriage etc.?  Does he really believe what he is saying?
Many have pointed out that there might be another agenda here.  The Tories are happily dismantling the welfare state and leaving casualties to be picked up by the charities, many of them church-run.  Perhaps they envisage a US-style system where huge, wealthy church charities do the job which the state has hitherto done here.  But we don't have huge, wealthy church charities in Britain, and bleating about the "big society" isn't going to create them.
While Cameron hasn't openly declared war on his opponents, Duncan Smith has.  He can rely on the likes of Stephen Glover in the Mail to write preposterous nonsense on his behalf, and on councils like that in North Lincolnshire, where they have decided that "residents who smoke and have satellite television" are not eligible for hardship payments if they are hit by the bedroom tax.  But IDS's arch enemy is the Trussell Trust, which he accuses of "running a business" and therefore having a vested interest in the proliferation of food banks.  That'll go down well with the thousands of volunteers, in Trussell Trust and other food banks, who are giving their time and energy freely to help those in desperate need.  An excellent article on the subject appeared this week in an unexpected place - the Economist magazine.  I recommend it.  It draws attention to the soaring number of sanctions.  A similar point is made by the Citizens Advice blog, and it expresses concern that with the new regime of 4-week minimum sanctions duration this is going to get much worse.
Of course, readers of the Daily Mail don't know anything about that.  In a baffling article yesterday someone called Matt Chorley, their political editor, ranted about the "welfare state we're in" and, since Mail readers need pictures, included lots of helpful graphics.  What's peculiar is that he happily acknowledged that a huge proportion of the bill is the state pension.  And pensioners react badly to being told that they're on "welfare" when they've paid in all their working lives on the basis that they would get a pension at the end of it.  So this may well come under the heading of "shooting yourself in the foot".
There's some minor news about A4e.  Two of its non-executive directors, Sir Hugh Sykes and Steve Boyfield, have stepped down, replace by Neil MacDonald and Sarah Anderson.  It's not significant.  Non-execs are only supposed to serve for 9 years, and for Sykes and Boyfield that period was up.
So, if you can, have a happy Easter.

13 comments:

  1. What amazes me about Sanctions is that you are still required to attend the JCP+ continue job searching,with no money or face further Sanctions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if sanctioned for 3 years!

      Delete
  2. As the economy 'improves' political pundits and economic commentators will (hopefully) look at the upturn more closely and what it is based on. We have seen a bit of this week (C4 news). It is the interests of everyone that the economy can be sustained. This will not happen if it is based on misleading economic statistics, low productivity, sanctions and food banks. The article in the Economist recognises this fact as do an increasing number of economists.

    The wool cannot be pulled over their eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's at least nice to see the Daily Mail being honest about Welfare spending for once. Judging by the readers reactions though, it may not continue and the rhetoric will probably refocus on the lie that all the money is going down the drain supporting the ''scrounger'' class.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess you're right, but for some of the more intelligent DM readers (...) the cat may at least be out of the bag about "welfare" spending.

      Maybe...

      Delete
    2. "There's no way through that insane arrogance"

      Exhibit B taken from outraged Daily Flailer:

      "What ridiculous cheek. Most pensioners have worked all their life and paid tax and National INsurance to pay for their pensions. Just because successive governments have wasted trillions of pounds , it doesn't mean that pensioners are not owed what they worked for."

      Of course, voting for corrupt nation destroying politicians for decades should`nt have any negative impact on our personal circumstances should it?

      Delete
    3. If that's supposed to mean that pensioners are to blame because of their voting habits, you are simply playing the same game as those who want to pit one generation against another to deflect blame from themselves.
      Just for the record, I have never voted Conservative in my life - my hand would fall off if I tried.

      Delete
  4. Food banks - the mudslinging begins...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/No-ID-no-checks-vouchers-sob-stories-The-truth-shock-food-bank-claims.html

    Looks like the DM has got its eyes on the Trussel Trust. Now people who use food banks are next in line to be labelled as "scroungers"; can that sh*trag stoop any lower?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The answer to your question is, probably yes.
      It's beneath contempt, and you have to wonder at the morals of the people who write stuff like this.

      Delete
  5. Whether you are particularly religious or not, it has to be a good sign that the Church of England and the Catholic Church are uniting and speaking out against a major injustice in the shape of Smith's 'welfare reforms'. Otherwise what the hell are they there for?

    "He's wrong; I wish he'd talked to me first."  Says Smith.

    I'm sure many a politician who have been criticised would like their biggest critics to have spoken to them first so thy could have their views 'adjusted'. Smith deserves no such courtesy.

    As for the ridiculous Mail article. Both the Mail and Smith see anyone on benefits as dependent of welfare. They seem to forget that after pensioners, the biggest beneficiaries of the welfare system are those IN WORK on pitifully low wages. The truth is that food banks are an inconvenient truth for this loathsome government, not a one idiotic reply on the Mail suggest “a tool being used against the government”. Anyone can see that the rapid rise in the use of food banks mirrors the explosive rise in the number of benefit sanctions for example. Smith is using the old saying “build it and the will come” and applying it to food banks. Well, this may well work with a shopping mall, nightclub or discount store. However, many if not most people using food banks do so out of desperation and have a sense of shame in having to do so.

    The government wishes to reduce the numbers claiming JSA by scaring jobseekers off it as much as them finding work, however unsuitable. Now what was the phrase current Home Secretary Theresa May used to describe her own party when in opposition, 2002? The nasty party? That moniker never actually went away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scaring people off JSA? After my last signing on I think you maybe right,I was seen by "Team Leader" very aggressive,unhappy with the info in my claimant book as it did not go into enough detail,I was asked how many potential employers I had called,the answer was None,this started a long discussion about being sanctioned for not seeking employment,I reminded the Adviser that having credit on my phone is a luxury I cannot afford,the UJM site is supposed to be the ultimate site that changes how we search for work,it does not require a phone,I also produced a printout of the UJM tool kit that allows the claimant to furnish proof as they see fit,that did not go down well. I also had a copy of a DWP press release(Sept 2013) stating that within days of leaving the WP everybody will be in Training a Work placement or MIR "That does not apply in your case" Am I something Special?

      Delete
    2. When JSA has been replaced with Workfare/CWP the Tories will then go after the Holy Grail - the State Pension. This is the one they REALLY want because it is so expensive. Nobody, expect the super rich, puts in anything like the cash what they are likely to take out.

      If the Tories win the next election expect a cut in real terms in the State Pension, an extension to the pensionable age to 75, a push to get the retired into public sector job e.g. libraries, museums, face to face customer service council, hospital and school admin jobs - with the threat of closer if 'volunteers' can't be found (see Wigan Council).

      The Daily Mail article is just testing the water. Be prepared for more.

      Delete
    3. A large number of elderly people suffer from dementia. Would you trust such a person with any kind of public sector job? Believe me, even in the early stages I wouldn't (family experience here, no way could they do any kind of admin or face to face customer service and this is a person who is too aware to be taken to the dr for diagnosis, not even 75 yet). And there would be no accountability for mistakes because the person making them would be ill and couldn't be held responsible. If your scenario happens it will be very very interesting.

      Delete

Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".