Analysis comment

Labour responds to crisis that is forcing millions into hardship – with attack on benefits claimants that lurches right back to Blair

Left MPs react with disgust as Labour’s new leadership further destroys party’s hard-won credibility and gifts political narrative back to Establishment to the detriment of millions of struggling people

Labour’s lurch back to Blairism – and the trashing of Starmer’s leadership-campaign promise to retain Labour’s left-wing policies – has continued today with the publication of an article on the firmly-centrist PoliticsHome (PH) site by Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.

Five years of clear leadership destroyed the Tories’ austerity narrative – and Starmer has been handed a golden opportunity on a plate to push the anti-austerity argument further after Boris Johnson was forced by the coronavirus crisis to implement much of what Jeremy Corbyn proposed.

Instead – and as millions face hardship because of lost jobs and income in the crisis caused by Johnson’s mishandling of the coronavirus crisis – and unquestionably with Starmer’s authorisation, Reynolds is pushing a right-wing ‘get out what you pay in’ narrative that would mean the people struggling the worst would be the most damaged:

Claiming that he wants to make Labour ‘credible’, Reynolds told PH:

I feel if you have made greater contributions to the system, there is an argument that you should receive more out of that system. It doesn’t mean that you will ever be leaving people without support or leaving them destitute. But I simply feel that that lack of a connection between what you put in and what you get out has become a major problem of social security and the political support for it.

This dire approach is strongly reminiscent of the political bankruptcy of Labour trying to out-Tory the Tories when Cameron was PM, such as the notorious immigration-controls mug or Rachel Reeves’ promises to be tougher on benefits claimants than the Conservatives.

Reynolds’s ‘connection’ would inevitably mean that those who have been in the hardest circumstances for longest are adversely affected – and left-wing Labour MPs were rightly quick to point out how close such an approach would be to the idea of ‘the deserving poor’ that the Victorians used to absolve themselves of leaving huge numbers of ‘undeserving’ in the most appalling poverty:

Starmer’s campaign promises to left-wing members have lasted about as long as it took to tear them up. Change is urgently needed before the entire political narrative is handed back to the Establishment to the hurt of millions of people already struggling desperately.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

75 comments

    1. We dont
      We tell you to stand and fight for your party, never ever ever give in, it only encourages the fuckers

      1. It’s not giving in to withdraw from the right and regroup for a counter-attack from the left.
        Cuddling up to the fuckers is what encourages them.

      2. David McNiven
        It’s not a driving test or worse still where are you on a friday night when the blood and snot is flying

      3. Frank Field Labour lord. Promoted because Corbyns three choices were denied. How many more blows?!?!

        Fuck Labour. Eat the rich!

      4. Driving test? Blood and snot? Friday night?
        When you sober up do you think you’ll remember what point you were trying to make?

  1. Totally agree about the bankrupt right-wing nature of Reynolds’ arguments.

    Why then, is Skwawkbox blind to the nature of the intention of the Tory narrative on Covid-19 and the associated policy measures?

    Anyone can see that what is dominant is *not* the current evidence for state intervention, but the future use to which the political and economic control measures will be put.

    Watch the new austerity emerge. And watch the effects of the pacification of the population as it is implemented.

    1. So all the world’s leaders had this meeting, right, and somebody said, “So we’re agreed – the world be a nicer place without all those huddled masses?”
      And this other bloke said “What could we use – maybe a virus? Anybody got a good one?”
      And that nice Mr. Xi put his hand up.

      Something like that, RH?

      1. Oh, McNiven engaging in fantastical fairy stories and obliquely attributing them via a question mark to someone who said nothing of the kind. Even if you weren’t sporting the logo the support for the de facto Galloway grandstanding party your political ‘party’ would be clear.

      2. Workers Party logo is similar but different – this is an RAF roundel.
        It was my second choice, first was plain red – unfortunately someone then used a photo of his own vagina or anus for his logo so I had to change mine again and I picked this.
        Reason I use it is my eyesight’s not so good any more.
        That OK with you, dear?
        Nothing oblique about it – it was a direct attack on RH’s comment, just dressed up as humour.

        “Future use to which [Coronavirus Act 2020] will be put” neglects to mention that it expires in two years and has to be reviewed every six months.
        If they try to use it to oppress us we deal with them then. Or I will – you’re in Ireland you say.

      3. I apologise sincerely McNiven for my error and following conclusions. The Galloway party logo is starting to haunt me such is my disappointment in where it is going. With LP now back playing second fiddle to ‘privatise the world agenda’ UK politics is beyond depressing.

      4. David

        So all the world’s leaders had this meeting, right, and somebody said, “So we’re agreed – the world be a nicer place without all those huddled masses?”
        And this other bloke said “What could we use – maybe a virus? Anybody got a good one?”
        And that nice Mr. Xi put his hand up.

        Not quite. Not so much “Anyone got a good one?” as “Well, after all the viruses we’ve had this century, we can expect that another one will be along any minute”, so the world’s authoritarians drew up a wish list of measures for this eventuality, under cover of which they could con us into demanding our own social and economic impoverishment. Mr Xi had little to do with it.

        And so it began…

      5. I will still be fighting (in my, perhaps inadequate, way) to retain our rights and freedoms and fight the ‘privatise the world agenda’. Yes I am in Ireland and was going to return to be near my sister but cannot in the forseeable nor can she come here, which she is increasingly wanting to do. The picture here is broadly the same but less severe and in the very rural (poor) area I live life goes on pretty much as normal which is a bonus I cherish.

        The health system over here is already privatised and insurance based. Miles (40m mins) to travel to a hospital designated to take one level of emergencies and an hour and a half to major hosp that is designated as the top level. Hospitals here are graded as to what they can deal with and local A&E department is closed completely except for minor which is 100 euro if you don’t have insurance. My local hospital is lovely and very good,.I had the dubious pleasure of being an inpatient there after going through the A&E system last year when attending an outpatients appointment at my local hospital, I was sent in emergency ambulance to lower graded packed and hectic A&E dept, 40 mins away, then I spent two days in short term care ward before returning via ambulance to local hosp where I stayed for a week and a half. I am told that the A&E where I was sent is over run 24/7, 7/7 since the local one closed. Disclaimer. I’m not using my experience as a weapon just for info. as how disjointed a system can get when structured for private profit.

      6. I’ve been asking for a ‘sarcasm’ emoji for ages. What about it, Skwawk?

    2. “Anyone can see that what is dominant is *not* the current evidence for state intervention, but the future use to which the political and economic control measures will be put.”

      Well put.

  2. I totally agree with Diane Abbott’s reference to the deserving poor. This is a vile concept and that we should not be indicating it is acceptable is utterly disgusting .
    I remember many years ago Roy Hattersley – not a left winger by any means- criticised the “deserving poor” concept. He pointed quite rightly that there is never any reference made to the “deserving rich”
    Clearly Jonathan Reynolds is well to the right of Roy Hattersley so God help us all – particularly those of us who are in vulnerable, in poverty and in need.

  3. Reynolds isn’t very clear what he means in the interview, perhaps he hasn’t quite worked out exactly where he’s going with this yet. From the little he did say my impression is that be is perhaps leaning towards something like the unemployment benefits system in Germany.

    1. Just desist with your fucking annoying ambiguity, you utter thundercunt.

      Next it’ll be ‘ It’s NOT a DEFINITE change on Corbyn’s policy so I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Lr other such pathetic verbal diarrhoea

      You insult people’s intelligence all the time, and you do it purposely. Fucking toerag.

      1. Toffee – Having read the original article on the Reynolds’ interview. I gave my interpretation of the scant details revealed. I don’t recall Corbyn having a policy on UC that went past scrapping and replacing it. Were we ever given any details about what would replace it.

        Many years ago I lived and worked in West Germany and my impression at the time was that their unemployment benefits system worked very well and aided (rather than hindered) people to get back into work. Although the current German system is from memory slightly less generous than when I lived there it is still a very considerable improvement on our UC which is designed to be punitive rather than supportive.

      2. Toffee – ignore the pratt. You can present it with all the evidence for an argument and it will read out the spaces between the words. It is a right wing starmer-arselicking twat. You will never get any sense out of it, better to argue with tub of lard.

      3. Toffee. Just sent the fox to Coventry.

        You’ll feel much better just skimming past.

        Skwawkbox even puts names at the top of the post to help.

        Hope you and yours are well.

      4. SteveH
        UC was not designed to be punitive it was designed to address the benefit trap
        It has been made punitive by scumbags
        You cannot have a system where it pays not to work, that is not a safety net it’s a noose around your neck
        Toffee
        Anyone in this party who says they are going to scrap UC or supports UBI is a moron, what is your policy

      5. Doug – I wasn’t aware that I was in any way advocating a benefits system that encouraged people not to work. I suggest you have a closer look at the German system. In contrast to our UC system whose whole premise seems to be to bully people to find a new job the German system appears to support the unemployed back into work. There’s a difference.

      6. SteveH
        It wasn’t an attack on you,
        Universal Credit is designed to be a one stop shop to get a basic income to those who need it
        Not for those who think they deserve more because they have paid in,
        No one on here addresses the benefit trap where you can lose more than 100% of any pound you earn, that was the old system
        Dont confuse what the scumbag Tory party have done to it,
        It is the path out of benefit dependency and in our hands will become a safety trampoline that catches you when you fall then wangs you back into the world of work or volunteering
        Both equally valued and paid a living wage
        It addresses how you treat earnings
        For me no one loses a penny under £12k then you begin to claw back benefit at a nominal amount upto £27k, so it becomes a two track tax system
        Regards

      7. Things that make you go hmmm. Doug…

        What system do we have that pays not to go to work? Apart from the HoC of course. And what system did we ever have?

        The scrapping of UC is bad? Free money is bad (you’re coming across as the type who believes making others richer is good). Maybe you’d like to share some thoughts on MMT?

        Do you believe carers should be forced into a second job for the similar money they claim? Maybe they should be forced to do something for the community for free?!?!

        You sure you’re in it for the many?

      8. nvla
        Means testing, sanctions, MMT, bad
        Well paid work and well paid volunteering good
        3rd sector steps in when government and the markets fail, 23 years in 3rd sector
        Regards

    2. Yes Steve H Reynolds is leaning towards Germany as you say,Nazi Germany and get off your right wing propaganda .Your name should carry a Health warning.

      1. Joseph – FFS that’s a bit desperate. You having to resort to purile accusations about Nazi Germany clearly illustrates that you have acknowledged the paucity of your own argument.

    3. Doug, that you criticise UBI shows your ignorance, and that you come to the conclusion that people should not be paid subsistence as it is a deterrent to work is wholly flawed. This ONLY becomes possible if wages are depressed to accommodate employers greed.

      1. steve
        UBI is a dangerous pipe dream, a catch all cure for what exactly
        Where I come from every penny is worth a pound in the right peoples pockets
        Subsistence is for slaves, this is all about a safety net that works and gives folk a chance to bounce back when they are ready, dignity and security
        Apologies if it doesn’t fit any of the ism’s on here, that’s the difference between practice and theory
        Regards

      2. Doug, your comments also fail to address the AI/robotics future that’s virtually certain.
        By the time the workforce has been reduced by say half or two thirds there’ll be no alternative to UBI.
        Your assumption is that today’s circumstances are fixed.

  4. Get a shave reynolds, you bad scruffy meff. Yet another shithouse thinking he’s a hardcase, a-la liam byrne & rachel reeves. Another ‘work for your dole and give the corporates some more taxpayer-funded labour’ gobshite.

    When was the last time HE did a real day’s graft? (Rhetorical)

    But what else is to be expected under that slimy fucker, starmer and his lackeys?

    Way to go, you monumental spineless, dick-heads; alienate as many more voters as you can.

    Voters who – pretty soon, and for their first time as well as through NO fault of their own – are gonna find out for themselves what penury is like; and what it is to be labelled ‘scroungers’ by the MSM, the toerags… and shortly, it appears, the ‘labour’ party.

    fpr someone who’s meant to be an expert at forensically deconstructing things, stammer is worse than fucking clueless when it comes to forensically deconstructing the mindset of those he wants to vote for him. The man – and his turd polishing toadies – are completely fucking inept when it comes to what joe public wants.

    But just like he had his 70% of membership to fall back on over the EU shithousery, he has the (partial) backing of the murdoch empire at the moment. And this is fascistic, murdoch-approved politics at it’s most abhorrent.

    I keep telling yous on here – they’re fucked morally AND politically, and they’ll not be content until they fuck you RIGHT OVER..

    They’re NOT REMOTELY interested in you. Or me. Or anyone else who isn’t them.

    Get out of that coterie. Get out and deny them their twin meal tickets of your subscription AND your vote. Why should THEY dine on steak for doing fuck-all, while denying you as much as some offal?

    Rodents.

    1. Having read the interview in ‘politics home’ , I take back SOME of my impression of reynolds, as he does seem to have some semblance of the injustices within the UC system in that interview.

      However, the: ‘take out what you put in’ perpetuates a ‘strivers & skivers’ perception; even if the context he meant to say that in does portray people feeling let down by the system when they come to rely on it; it’s still all too easily misconstrued. Plus there was no clarification that it doesn’t mean the opposite of what he said.

      He also made NO mention of scrapping UC, in fact, on the whole he seems to prefer it, given he doesn’t mention anything about a return to ‘legacy benefits’.

      And NO mention of scrapping WCA’s. No mention of the wanton cruelty that defines them, neither. Just a pithy mention that ‘No-one should be satisifed’ with them’ (The number of claimant-adverse WCA decisions being overturned)

      Well, they’re NOT. So what was the point of saying that without any mention of future intent?

      That does not give me any confidence in him. And he’s still a scruffy meff that needs a shave. And starmer’s still – and always will be – a right slimy twunt. And so are his dogsbodies.

      1. Toffee
        Agree they are masters at not rocking the boat being all things to all people, not gonna work when the entire world is on the edge, empires are falling and the financial pandemic will wipe them out, not the ‘sniffles’
        Heres one for you all on here
        People who take their money offshore can only spend it onshore, discuss

      2. Doug found a nugget.
        “People who take their money offshore CAN only spend it onshore.”
        Either that or build a completely self-contained society and economy on the offshore tax haven of their choice, and be King.
        Would they make it a competitive, capitalist economy, just for old times’ sake, or a fiefdom with serfs?
        I think we know the answer to that.

  5. No idea when or where or what he was talking about when I saw him on TV – it was while JC was leader though – but I remember he made a vaguely positive impression.
    Just another empty shell that moves with the wind and tide expect.

  6. Blimey, I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

    Privatise the world to benefit the few and those who comply with it is fully back on track, now who in LP couldn’t see it coming… everyone who voted for ‘the lesser evil’ that is Starmer, except he isn’t and was never going to be less of a servant of Corporatism that serves private profit/vested interests.

  7. After my wife and I had paid into the system since leaving school 40 years previously, I found myself unemployed. I got £74 per week for myself or if I claimed for my wife we could have got £112 per week for the two of us. My wife had a part time job and she was allowed to keep £5 of her wage.Anything over that was deducted pound for pound from our “benefit”. After 6 months, our benefit was stopped because we had money in the bank. So for 80 years of contributions between us, except for help with council tax, that was all we got. We still had a mortgage that we got no help for, however if we were renting our rent would have been covered.
    I am a member of the Labour Party and I consider myself left wing. But on this occasion, I think more attention should be paid to contributions/ tax paid etc. It is certainly unfair to pay in for so long that this all a person can receive when others having paid in for much shorter period can claim the same or more.

    1. Chris
      Now do you believe it’s not enough to live on and people living close to the edge are being pushed over

      1. Doug, Of course it is not enough to live on. The whole system is designed to force people into the first job that comes along. Irrespective of whether they can do the job at all and then end up back on benefits after being sacked for being unsuitable.

      2. Chris
        Would it be fair to say take away means testing and give you single persons benefits would solve it for you
        So you are not asking for more based on contributions because that’s a non starter
        The system we pay into should provide a basic income we are all entitled to claim, not a penny more nor a penny less

      3. Yes Doug, We are taxed as individuals and benefits should be paid to individuals and should not take into account what other members of the household are earning. I have paid my taxes to the government,NOT to my wife. Why should she keep me?

  8. “Left MPs react with disgust” Ha, left MPs, are there any in the LP? Where were they when Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker, Mark Wadsworth etc al were being witch-hunted? 🤔

    1. Jack the Shill spouting his same old mantra….. Every opportunity he gets! So how many times is that now Jack? Fifty times? Probably nearer a hundred times during the past year or so in fact. And only black propagandists endlessly repeat things, signpost being a very good example (Cod rest his soul).

      Any left-wing MP who had tried to defend and support Chris or Jackie or Marc (or Ken) would have themselves come under attack from the fascist forces that were ranged against Jeremy and the left. And Jack knows it of course!

      1. Oh! Allan Howard, White Flag Man, I see you’ve not changed your colours.

        Even if I’ve got to say it a thousand times, many so called ‘left wing MPs’ are cowards. When it came to the crunch, ‘solidarity’ was nowhere to be found. They know as well as many of us know, that the Labour Party is firmly in the grip of the Zionists who successfully destroyed Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and our chances of a Socialist government. Keir Starmer is now heading up that capitulation and even if under him, Labour is able to win a GE, it will not be a Socialist government.

  9. Oh, and why are we taxed as individuals but if we do need benefits other peoples money is assessed as part of the claim

    1. Chris – and why if one partner is working and wholly supporting their non working partner can’t the stay at home partner not transfer their full tax allowance to the working partner.

      1. SteveH. What I meant was, “It is ME who has paid for MY unemployment benefit. Why should whatever my wife earns affect what I receive.” Why should she have to support me when it is ME who has paid the government to do that whenever I fall on hard times.

  10. I think his intentions are being misunderstood. Here’s the FULL quote. Please read to the end.

    “We need a system where everyone feels it’s available to them. When people put in, they get the right amount of support out of it. And if you put more in, you get more out of it. But it genuinely is there for everybody. And at the same time gives dignity and respect to people with disabilities who won’t be able to participate in the labour market in the same way,” he says.

    “One of the reasons that support for social security has diminished amongst parts of the country is the sense that people put into the system and they don’t get anything out of it. In a way, if you look at eligibility for Universal Credit, people are not wrong. You can make significant contributions to the system and find that actually, you’re not really eligible for any major support if you need it, even in a crisis like this one. I think you’ve got to recognise that that’s a big problem for working people in the UK.”

    1. Wanda
      He’s not wrong
      How many folk are about to find out there is no safety net
      Maria
      UC is fine, the 1uickest way to get money to those who need it,
      The cheap and nasty Tory party have gutted it and hopefully their supporters will find out the hard way there is no safety net

    2. The flawed comment is “And if you put more in, you get more out”, that you fail to see that this is detrimental to the least well off shows a lack of socialist ideals.

  11. As I predicted earlier, Labour Conference 2020 has been “postponed”, so a lot of good water’s going to go under the bad bridge before we can turn some real fire on these scumbags.

    Rachel Reeves has a lot to answer for. I sincerely hope her ideological legacy will be roundly rejected by a post-Corbyn party. We shall see…

  12. plandemic , peasant control test = billions for the elite more austerity on way no deal exit ,,,all planned as was end of labor party by the fiends of zion

    1. What do you mean by ‘Fiends of Zion’? Is that an anti-Israeli government comment – because if it is, make that clear. Otherwise it sounds dangerously like a conspiracy theory

  13. It should come as no surprise that disciples of the establishment lackey, controlled by the US right wing oligarchs, are now on a right wing trajectory. If it sounds familiar, it is, because the other shining knight saviour of the Labour Party, tread this path long before our current knight ready to be the new messiah started to bend the knee to the establishment as his post as head of the DPP amply demonstrated!

  14. Change the language
    There is no safety net anymore you are driving people to their deaths, give us your income and expenditure sheet on how much people need to survive
    The cheap and nasty Tory party has a visceral hatred of the NHS and has spent the last 10 years running it into the ground and is planning to sell what’s left to Trumpton

  15. Didn’t take long for Sell Out Starmer and this political imbecile Robotic Reynolds to show ((a) they lack the political courage to stand by the poor and (b) the political acumen to counter the dominant Right Wing narrative on welfare.
    There are 2 welfare states, the luxurious upper class one where the rich are subsidised to the hilt with tax relief and incentives, and the working class one which is deliberately meagre (to threaten those in work to accept crap pay and conditions or this is what you will get) and often associated with shame and stigma.
    But Big Business ‘Corporate Welfare’ gets £97b a year in tax reliefs and incentives which is the quivalent of£3,500 per household.
    Of course the Tories deliberately set neighbour against neighbour re welfare and try to turn us against each other which distracts from tax cuts for millionaires who are often invisible and distant from most peoples lives.
    We need a fair and decent welfare state which respects citizens and supports and offers help (we could have community workers triained in the ideas of Paulo Freire to work with the left behind to empower them) and as one of my union colleagues says, to go along with the Living Wage we need A Living Benefit!
    As for you get back what you put in, the labour of diverse working people creates everything including all wealth, the majority of which is legally nicked by the capitalists so perhaps we are due the full fruits of or industry.
    As Starmer and Reynolds, Political Dumb and Political Dumber, offer crumbs for working people perhaps our goal should be the bloody table!

  16. Whilst the Knight led Labour party concentrate on making the public pay for austerity MK2,The Torys hand out cheap loans with no collateral and no guarantees to pay back….Yes you got it over 16 billion givaway and even a whopping 1billion to a German company.But Labour are more interestef in stealing the crumbs off the table of the recipients of our failing social security system.ITS unbelievable that the Labour party could have sunk so low and so fast..A matter of weeks and the vision of leading Europe in a Socialists dream has turned into a nightmare.

    1. Joseph – Could you please quote what you find so objectionable that Reynolds has actualy said. (rather than what you think he may have said or meant).

      1. Attacks on social security claiments are distractions politics,and just an excuse for a failing government and a Labour party in freefall.

      2. Perhaps I could assist, he is implying that you should only get out what you pay in. If levelled at the NHS it would be easy to understand, Earning under 20K, basic cancer drugs, over 100k the best drugs and treatment available. Social benefits should be equal to all, and should adequately cover expenditures.

  17. My mother & my grandmother couldn’t continually ‘pay in’ to the ‘system, having been ‘unemployed’ for short times or working part-time in numerous menial jobs & bringing up kids. They were denied ‘full benefits’ despite paying in all their lives. However I do have a problem with ‘new arrivals’ demanding benefits without any contributions. Oh dear! That is not very left wing.

    1. And that is the whole trouble Steve. You say that your mother and grandmother couldn’t continually pay into the system- but they did. The might not have paid income tax or NI but they paid other taxes. VAT, Insurance tax, perhaps fuel duty if they owned a car. FFS they even paid VAT on their sanitary products. EVERYBODY has paid in and EVERBODY should receive help when needed.

      1. Yes, and even those newly arrived (unless they are rich) will be exploited to the max.

      2. fao Chris……….own a car? They never owned a fridge; nor a television, nor a washing machine, just a tub & a mangle, neither did they have the luxury of a shower or even a bathroom until mid/late ’60s.just a galvanised bath on the kitchen wall, heated by gas stove. No VAT, but some purchase tax paid, but not enough money to buy anything other than clothes or food. A classic example of ‘white privilege’.

  18. It’s interesting that the knight of the realm, bought and paid for lackey of the establishment, controlled by the oligarchs in the US and his satraps are so willingly to comment on the Tory gate keeping controlled social security system, which as most people who have ever had to apply for it know it’s designed to be as complex and obstructive as possible to the most vulnerable, the most poorest, the most needy in the U.K. to achieve subsistence level support barely enough to keep body and soul together.

    Yet, offer nothing to return it the levels for all which could offer enough income instead of existing on a hand to mouth existence.

    In addition, it’s also noticeable that the lackey of the establishment plus his supporters make scarcely, if any comment, about the corporate welfare payments to the richest, wealthiest, most powerful corporations, banks, hedge financial institutions, very powerful rich investors both in the U.K. and also overseas. It runs to the tune of approximately £93,000,000,000 completely dwarfing the social security budget which by the way the lions share goes to pensions not claims for social security support.

    Now, many of these recipients fund the Tory party as have some of them funded the lackey of the establishments leadership campaign plus of course some of the Tory fellow travellers in the Democratic Socialist Labour Party. However, hardly a peep out of any of this motley crew about these parasites living of the the public ( and proclaiming to be against socialism).

    No wonder the arguments are always skewed to the deserving or undeserving poor!

  19. More than 4 decades ago or when there was full employment ( not fiddled figures including people working 1 hour per week) and the pay was of a sufficient level ( for many people) to maintain a reasonable standard of living and accommodation ( mortgage or rental ) costs did not consume up to 2/3 of their income.

    People applying for unemployment benefits ( contribution based ) received 12 months unemployment benefits which were then transferred to means tested unemployment benefits ( social security). People applying for other social security benefits such as housing, sickness benefits, general social security benefits were not assigned work coaches, were not expected to churn out CVs, were not expected to prove they were actively looking for work 40 hours a week and were not waiting ( as a rule) 5 weeks for their first social security check after qualifying for them or sanctioned by loss of a complete/partial benefits because the failed in their job search quota, were late by 10 minutes for an appointment to see their “ job coach”.

    Many many many people tried to get off benefits ( if they were physically or mentally well enough) as soon as possible because WORK WAS OF A SUFFICIENT LEVEL NOT TO BE ONE OF THE WORKING POOR REQUIRING IN MANY CASES THE CHARITY OF FOOD BANKS TO SURVIVE.

    Of course the counter arguments are as to be expected the nature of work has changed, we can’t afford these level of benefits, it’s become a globalised economy etc . Yet, the U.K. can afford to participate in 7 wars around the globe ( create illegal wars ie the NL invasion of Iraq ), spending over £100,000,000,000 + on Armageddon submarines, being able to spend vast sums on the military in order to maintain an illusion the British Empire still exists, spend over £93,000,000,000 on corporate socialism and give £1,000,000,000s to the banks plus financial institutions to rescue them with state socialism from their hubris, hyperbole and criminal enterprises.

    In terms of employment the U.K. under both the Tories and Neo Tories undertook to dismantle organised Labour, first under Thatcher then under her acolyte Tony Blair. They set out to create NeoLiberalism as the de rigeur of economic plus political orthodoxy. Under Thatcher she destroyed almost overnight 20% of U.K. industry by her slavish following of the madcap economic ideology of Milton Friedman. Blair continued with this ideology, ie PPFI which saddled the public services with a mountain of debt benefitting his string pullers in the City of London as they were Browns. The chairman of Rolls Royce, one of the few world class successful industrial companies that U.K. has, said that “ if he pursued his non industrial policies, he should expect nothing less than a third world economy). How the chickens are coming home to roost. In essence, the reliance of benefits, which was also increased because John Major pushed more people on to incapacity benefits rather unemployment benefits because it “ massaged” the unemployment figures, was swollen by millions because the jobs are not there in many areas of the former industrial areas of the U.K. unless you think working for a subsistence Level is classed as a job.

    Hence why Blair encouraged the former Warsaw Pact citizens to come to the U.K. seeking employment. Divide and conquer has always been the policy of the establishment use the migrants to fill the subsistence paid jobs which most people cannot survive on and use the number of migrants to divert attention from one of the real causes of increases in the numbers on benefits. A dysfunctional Neoliberal system which is controlled by a small number of banks, hedge funds, financial institutions and very very very powerful rich investors. It would be interesting to observe how long any leader, or politician, of any of the main political parties would last if they stated to draw attention to the real beneficiaries of the U.K. That’s why you don’t have a vigorous debate in the MSM, State Broadcaster because it’s not within the accepted dogma of the day!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: