The response to David Cameron's 'Work For Welfare' reforms has been interesting. Labour's line of attack has been the proposals are out-of-date or just nicked from plans the government already has in place and, obvious partisans aside, the pundits have given them a cautious welcome. The absence of hysterical claims about the Tories forcing people into servitude is welcome - perhaps we're seeing a more nuanced and accurate understanding of what 'compassion' really means in politics.
Anecdotal evidence is a dangerous thing and under any proposals there'll be people the system fails and there will be those who know how to exploit it. There will always be deserving people falling foul of the rules and work-shy morons pocketing cash with no intention of seeking work so beware the politician who pulls these anecdotal examples from thin air to try and discredit their opponents - they'll always exist and can be used to attack either side. Compassion in a welfare system demands balance - a balance between recognising that most people out of work would rather not be there and will take all reasonable steps to become self-sufficient but recognition that some people don't fit that bill and any monies spent on them is money lost to genuine cases (or health or education etc.) So a system that might ultimately see a very small number of people being denied any support at all is still a compassionate system - arguably more so than those that don't make any such distinction. There's a similar subtlety at play when discussing asylum - offering support to those genuinely fleeing persecution is our moral duty and I'd personally have no truck with any politician who didn't accept this. But support for those genuine cases is contingent upon a reasonably firm approach to those who exploit the system and aren't genuine - bogus asylum seekers for want of a less inflammatory phrase. But that phrase is now so loaded that any politician that utters it immediately casts themselves beyond the pale.
Too often in politics the fair use of language comes second to the desire for narrow (and usually temporary) party advantage. Accusing your opponents of a lack of compassion is a little low because not everyone has the same view of what compassion means in political terms. The reaction to Tory welfare reforms suggests people are beginning to understand this....
Anecdotal evidence is a dangerous thing and under any proposals there'll be people the system fails and there will be those who know how to exploit it. There will always be deserving people falling foul of the rules and work-shy morons pocketing cash with no intention of seeking work so beware the politician who pulls these anecdotal examples from thin air to try and discredit their opponents - they'll always exist and can be used to attack either side. Compassion in a welfare system demands balance - a balance between recognising that most people out of work would rather not be there and will take all reasonable steps to become self-sufficient but recognition that some people don't fit that bill and any monies spent on them is money lost to genuine cases (or health or education etc.) So a system that might ultimately see a very small number of people being denied any support at all is still a compassionate system - arguably more so than those that don't make any such distinction. There's a similar subtlety at play when discussing asylum - offering support to those genuinely fleeing persecution is our moral duty and I'd personally have no truck with any politician who didn't accept this. But support for those genuine cases is contingent upon a reasonably firm approach to those who exploit the system and aren't genuine - bogus asylum seekers for want of a less inflammatory phrase. But that phrase is now so loaded that any politician that utters it immediately casts themselves beyond the pale.
Too often in politics the fair use of language comes second to the desire for narrow (and usually temporary) party advantage. Accusing your opponents of a lack of compassion is a little low because not everyone has the same view of what compassion means in political terms. The reaction to Tory welfare reforms suggests people are beginning to understand this....
Labels: Politics
3 Comments:
Or it could be that everyone is tired of being ripped off. I thought you were a little behind the zeitgest here following the IHT event .
Most people uot of work would not rather be working , they would rather take jobs unavailable to them but if they would take any job they would be working . Simple.
PS...most Labour votes are not from compassion but simply because they depend on state provision in varous ways . Only the elite juggle such meaningless words about and usually in order to gain pwer for themselves
IMHO
You keep referring to this 'IHT' event like some sort of watershed political moment - I assume you're refrencing Osbourne's decision to allow already very wealthy people to pass on yet more of their wealth to their children. I happen to agree with the policy but let's not present something that affects c. 6% of the population as some great blow for liberty - it's not.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home