The view taken is that all benefit claimants are scroungers on the state, and that the easy solution to their problems is to just reduce their income to such a level that magically they will be forced back into work.
This view is so naive that it is laughable. What about
- The disabled who need more benefit because they have a disability
- The mentally ill who cannot work because they are unwell.
- Mothers of large families, in particular those who are single parents.
- Amputees who need special equipment to enjoy normal lives (such as is possible)
- The old and infirm - perhaps the government should reduce their benefit to such an extent that they cannot afford heating and then die of cold.
- Victims of abuse in childhood, where the abuser was an employee of the state. They cannot work because they have no trust in any other human being sufficient to have an employer/employee relationship
What will happen if Iain Duncan Smith gets his way - well probably whole sections of the community will be unable to afford to buy food and starve to death - would they get a DSS paid funeral? Interesting point. I suppose that will just serve them right for not getting off their fat backsides and getting a job.
At the moment the House of Lords has whole heartedly rejected the idea in a revolt. Despite this Duncan-Smith seems determined to find a political way to push ahead with the proposals. The coalition government thinks the public are behind the proposed welfare reform changes.
An article in the Guardian entitled "there is an appetite for welfare reform" quoted public opinion from research in Britain.
"Other work we've done on "fairness" for the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests that this view is partly underpinned by the belief that fairness means not just people having the same opportunities but people not getting more out of a system than they have put in.
The same study identified a view that in some ways Britain has become "too fair", with common concerns being that benefit payments don't encourage hard work and that there are unfair advantages for some in the housing and even employment system. "
Sn, despite the fact that the House of Lords are against the idea, and that it seems a crazy notion to push through, like all outrageous policies in the name of "austerity" to "get the country back on its financial feet" it will probably be pushed through because they believe it is right and fair. Like many other examples of Tory policy where they have not listened to public opinion and have become latterly disaster areas eg. Poll Tax, Child Support Agency etc. This policy will probably be called a misthought badly judged policy which in future has to be reversed.
And just a final thought. What are you going to tell the one legged war veteran who cannot work, but will have his benefits reduced to an unacceptable level? "Never mind old chap, thank you for nearly sacrificing your life for Blighty and losing your leg. You will just have to manage on less - or you could easily spring back into work as a window cleaner may be - oh no you can't can you because you only have one leg....hmm....."