The Guardian has reported that:
In the half-hour address in Birmingham, [Lynton] Crosby said Labour “risks” amounted to “higher taxes, going back to high spending, more debt, the wrong priorities, the wrong signals to people on welfare, ......"
That one I have put in bold - that Labour might send the wrong message to people on 'welfare' jumped out at me.
First, I hate the term 'welfare'. No one is on 'welfare'. I would like to think we live in a compassionate and empathic society where we care for those suffering short or long term misfortune or who are in simple need and make provision for them as a result. This is not charity or a hand out. It is part of a process of mutual self support knowing that there, but for the grace of God (or not, as you think appropriate), we might all go which is why we pay when we can and claim when we need. This is not 'welfare'. This is social security.
But more important than that is what the message is that Lynton Crosby thinks Labour might send to people on 'welfare'.
I'd hope, and I am sure he fears, that Labour might say that all people are equal and worthy of respect.
And that society cares for those with need for whatever the reason.
And that we value what they have to offer, come what may, because it may be and often is exceptional.
And we know that they have real needs, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently, some of which they cannot afford to meet in cash terms and that we do so, willingly, on their behalf.
And that we welcome them in our communities.
And want them to play a full part and we'll help them do so.
And that we expect in return that when they can provide for others, as many will be able to do in due course if society gives them the chance, that they take their part in doing so when that time comes, because that's part of this relationship of caring.
Is that what Lynton Crosby fears?
Because if so I fear Lynton Crosby and hope that I never have to rely on his grace.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think what Crosby means by “the wrong signals” is that he believes Labour would simply park people on benefits and be quite happy to see the welfare bill escalate and make no effort to help people back into work. Whether he is correct in that belief is another matter.
I am sure you know that is not true
Only Thatcher did that
James what ‘help’ is Crosby’s party giving the unemployed, ill and vulnerable now:
I’ll tell you:
1) Over a million punitive and callous sanctions that force people into homelessness and food banks and this take money OUT of the economy.
2) Force people into spurious’ self-employment that is nothing of the sort.
3) Cause vulnerable and ill people to experience so much stress that they are obliged to use further NHS resources.
4) Create a culture of vilification that is utterly shameful and degrading for a so-called civilised nation.
5) provide virtually NO support for real skills training as Job centres are turned into sanction centres.
All False economies
Funny.
The Labour-introduced ¨Future jobs¨ fund was scrapped by Monsieur Cameron, in spite of it being found highly effective. And the corporate benefit jobsfinder schemes were introduced, which have since been found to be ineffective at finding jobs, but highly effective at siphoning taxpayers money into scam schemes that benefit conservative party donors.
In fact, this government is very good at enabling corporate scams.
I detest the fact that it’s one of the enduring achievements of the Cameron government, amply supported by most of the press, to have so corrupted our language that “welfare” has become synonymous to “social security” and then proceeded to demonise “welfare”, and therefore “social security”, recipients via relentless propaganda. Welfare was once a positive word but it’s now become one of the most negative.
Agreed
Also, there is the sheer mendacity of what he claims. He has the GALL to say ““risks” amounted to “higher taxes, going back to high spending, more debt”
Suggest he reads the following – http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/the-word-tories-is-an-abbreviation-of-tall-stories/
If ONLY Labour would trumpet this information loud and clear, and DUMP their idiotic “triangulation” and their cleaving to Hilaire Belloc’s advice “Keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of something worse.”
As I said in an earlier post, the open goal is as wide as the Irish Sea – for goodness’ sake Labour, get a decent striker, and nail these bastards, members of the most deceitful, dishonest, cruel and corrupt Government since Lord Liverpool’s of 1812-27.
My fear is the final transfer window has closed
In fairness, I don’t think LC is in any way a religious man. I think he’s fairly clear about that.
I don’t feel the same disgust to him as to, say, that Ryan guy in the US or anyone else who somehow thinks you can be both a Cristian & a Conservative. LC is a Conserva five only.
Andrew Dickie
Agree with you that someone needs to point out the following (to me unassailable) truths;
1) The deficit has grown under you
2) The reason for that is the economy has contracted
3) That’s because unemployment has grown
4) Don’t lie, you know, as well as we do, that unemployment is up. So is ‘false’ employment where people are forced off JSA onto various schemes that allow them to claim WFTC whilst working, in reality, 2-3 hours a week, plus WFTC kicking in where people working, in reality, full time are dragged down to allow their grasping employers to claim they meet NMW when they don’t.
5) Adding in the points at (4) above plus the housing benefit catastrophe caused by YOUR selling off council houses it is no surprise we get to
6) A benefits bill that is ever-rising
7) But its all the fault of the poor on benefits, according to George.
Still, I can’t imagine a few more riots will worry l’il George. “Like many of the upper classes, he loved the sound of breaking glasses”.
The other point Labour need to bring out OVER & OVER AGAIN!
The US took the other road. They raised Govt expenditure. They are booming.
Its hard to explain because in almost all respects they are, of course, way to the right of Europe, but the US took the hard-headed, practical decision to go Keynseian & it worked for them!
It can’t work (that easily) for Europe because of the euro, but it could easily work for us.
Agreed
Actually, despite the rhetoric about pump priming over there, US government spending has actually been cut since Obama took office.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp
The economy has grown in that time too.
I think you are revealing some basic failure of mathematical comprehension here
A percentage is a proportion of another number
So a fixed spend as a proportion of a declining number is shown as an increase, and vice versa
If you do not comprehend that please do not call again
Like a lot of things it’s a matter of balance. I agree it is safety net and I don’t like some of the ungenerous treatment of Social Security claimants. But to ignore the fact the system is not played with or defrauded is downright naive.
defrauding is reckoned at 0.7% of claims hardly an epidemic -compare that to the way the rentier economy extracts wealth from all of us via land and property speculation and uses the state to subsidise their wealth extraction via housing benefit!!!!
Kind of you to state “I don’t like some of the ungenerous treatment of Social Security claimants” Stephen, though as Simon has pointed out above, ungenerous is something of an understatement of the treatment meted out to Social Security claimants by this government.
I think I should point out that according to the revised figures for 2011/12, available from the DWP after a couple of minutes search of the web, 0.7% of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to fraud. Think about that Stephen, LESS than 1% of the Social Security budget is lost to fraud!
What is the comparable figure is other areas of life like the tax system? We all know perfectly well that the amount of tax lost due to evasion (i.e fraud) is a lot more than 0.7% of the total tax take. So if you’re going to worry about fraud in the economy, Social Security is the last place to be concerned with, isn’t it?
Precisely
Well put
“0.7% of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to fraud”
By its very nature, it is extremely difficult to put a figure on the amount lost to fraud. If we really knew the exact amount it would be 0%. The truth is no one has any idea.
Your comprehension of stats is desire
Benefit claims are a defined population that can be and has been reliably sampled for a long time and the stars
This contrasts with tax evasion where the population is not defined and has not been properly sampled
The data on fraud is very likely to be reliable
¨Preliminary estimates of Fraud and Error by type of error in 2012/13¨
0.7%, or £1.2bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to fraud
0.9%, or £1.6bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to claimant error
0.4%, or £0.7bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to official error
**0.6%, or £0.9bn, of total benefit expenditure is *underpaid* due to claimant error**
**0.3%, or £0.5bn, of total benefit expenditure is *underpaid* due to official error**
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefit-fraud-and-error-hard-work-must-continue-to-cut-35bn-loss
¨The corporate welfare budget arises from four main sources:
Paying little or no tax — Tax havens
Tax breaks
Enjoying huge subsidies
Removal of employment and environmental protection regulations¨
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/05/15/the-hidden-welfare-state-that-the-u-k-government-dares-not-speak-of/
¨One of the biggest myths of the contemporary political age is that private businesses would be stronger, more competitive, and more profitable, without the state. In reality, private businesses depend extensively on public services and state benefits — in other words, on corporate welfare. Corporate welfare describes public policies that directly or indirectly meet the specific needs and/or preferences of private businesses. Such provision assists corporations through their life-course. It makes possible the birth of corporations and helps to meet their evolving needs from ‘youth’ to maturity. It provides advice and protection and, more generally, socialises the costs and risks associated with private investment and profit-making. It keeps some companies on life-support and assists some companies in their death¨
http://www.renewal.org.uk/articles/the-british-corporate-welfare-state/
I agree with that