It's time to speak up for the poor

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/08/poverty-conservatives-labour-benefits

Is Britain a compassionate society? Sadly not on the evidence of the past few days, as the two main political parties compete to cut the incomes of some of the poorest. It is time for all who care about the plight of Britain's "forgotten millions" to speak out.

In a time of economic crisis and ballooning budget deficits, who should bear the brunt of public spending cuts? Those who already have the least and struggle to make ends meet, or those who have done well from the past decade of economic growth? If we were truly a compassionate society, it would surely be the wealthy who would be expected to tighten their belts, and the poorest who would be protected from greater hardship. Sadly, it appears as if politicians in both main parties have mislaid their moral compasses. They have chosen to cut the incomes of two of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society.

Why are our politicians outcompeting each other in taking money out of the pockets of the poorest in society? Where is the public outcry? Just imagine the headlines if a politician from any party stood up to propose a policy which involved cutting the incomes of middle Englanders by 30%.

Yet cutting the incomes of the poorest raises barely a whimper. The harsh fact is that too many have been taken in by the myths that the poor are somehow to blame for their own plight; people on incapacity benefit are workshy, spongers who need a good kick up the backside; people seeking asylum are "bogus" and should all just go home. Of course, "we" don't subscribe to such views – but how far are we prepared to challenge them?

[LeftishBrit]

1. k&r

[Nihil]

2. Yes and no

Cutting the incapacity benefit is literally adding insult to injury.
There is no justification for it: if someone meets the criteria for
that benefit, pay them the full amount but if someone is claiming it
illegally (i.e., not meeting the criteria) then stop & prosecute.
Don't try to fudge around with a bullying measure like this that is
neither one thing nor another.

On the other hand, asylum seekers being "cut to just £35.13 a week"
brings them into line with students who are expected to budget for
£5 per day even though the government only *lends* the latter group
money instead than doing the smart thing and *paying* for the next
generation (via grants not loans) to be an educated one rather than
a bunch of couch-potatoes.

I don't have a problem with the second "cut" but do have one with
the first.

:shrug: