Thursday, 19 June 2014

Miliband: Tory Cross-Dresser

 

Not only is he wearing their clothes, he talks like them too.  Of course, he says he is different, but his plans for benefits show he is walking in the footsteps and dancing to the tunes of the Tories.

Let none be fooled by his pretence of a social conscience.

The Tories have successfully framed the benefits debate as strivers versus skivers, working versus the work-shy, benefits’ scroungers versus the rest, them versus us.  They are different, they are getting that to which they are not entitled, they are taking from you.  But the Tories lie.  Of course, there are some scroungers: there are scroungers at the bottom, scroungers in the middle and at the top.  Where do the Tories look?  The bottom.  Those most disadvantaged.  And they abuse them.  Call them names.  Separate them from the rest of society.  And their right-wing lackeys of the press follow suit gladly.

 

It’s as though they (the disadvantaged) were the cause of our economic collapse and must be punished rather than being the victims of the scroungers at the financial top of society.

 

Now because this framing has been successful, Miliband has to respond and he does so not by challenging the Tories’ views but by adopting them to get the benefit of being tough and apparently sugar-coating them to gain credence from the left.  No amount of sugar-coating can mask the sour intent.

 

He says,

And we can restore the link between hard work and reward.  And to properly reward hard work and effort, we need contribution to be at the heart of our welfare system too.

We talk about the problem of people getting something for nothing.  And we are right to do so.

But there is a problem that politicians rarely talk about of people getting nothing for something.  How many times have I heard people say: “for years and years, I paid in and then when the time came and I needed help I got nothing out”?

Here he uses the Tories’ framing.

hard work and reward

properly reward hard work and effort

something for nothing

nothing for something

and then he brings in his key action:

we need contribution to be at the heart of our welfare system.

Surely the point of the contributions is that we all pay in when we can for the good of all. 

To make sure that someone who has been working for years and years, paying in to the system, gets more help if they lose their job, than someone who has been working for just a couple of years.

and

To make sure that someone who has been working for years and years, paying in to the system, gets more help if they lose their job, than someone who has been working for just a couple of years.

Why?

Are the financial needs different because one has been working for ‘years and years’?  The system should be about meeting need and not about rewarding anyone.  Do we not all pay taxes some of which goes to the NHS?  Is Miliband suggesting that we should get better care if we have contributed more.  No! Not yet, at least!  

We all contribute through taxes and we get back what we need.  The same principle should apply to benefits but the macabre dance towards punishment and rewards continues. 

Miliband’s basic premise is that working is hard but good, one contributes to society and deserves a reward.  But not working is easy and bad and deserves the minimum only.  This is typical divide and rule, an ‘us and them’.  We look after us and abuse them.

Having a job should be a right but now it is a privilege. Does Miliband think it’s easy to be unemployed and looking for work with the threat of sanctions ever present?

To be honest, I don’t think he cares. 

Rather than stand up for all including the disadvantaged he follows the Tories because he is afraid that to do otherwise would be damaging electorally. 

Stand up for what is right.  The more he moves to the right the more the Tories will move to the right and the dance continues.

STOP!

Say you will not follow the Tories because they and their media supporters are wrong and perpetuate a lie.  The disadvantaged do not deserve to be disadvantaged.  They are disadvantaged and that is punishment enough without the political classes scapegoating them.

 

I do not even dream of a change.  

 

2 comments:

  1. I'd say it was more a case of greed versus need

    ReplyDelete