…the fact of people left for weeks on end without any support and therefore having to have recourse to foodbanks in a country as affluent as ours was a disgrace.”
The Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols
Thousands of disabled people are being hit simultaneously with as many as six different welfare cuts. Overall up to 3.7 million sick and disabled people are affected. And the misery continues with benefit sanctions and the threat of further cuts. Sick, disabled or unemployed Cameron’s polices have been a disaster to disadvantaged people in our society. Yet despite the suffering relatively few speak out.
One of the few that has is the Archbishop.
Cameron has made some astonishing comments concerning his welfare reforms when challenged by the Archbishop of Westminster.
Cameron says that he is giving unemployed Britons “new hope and responsibility” by cutting their benefit payments and claims his welfare reforms are part of a “moral mission” for the country.
How does hope and responsibility come from poverty and destitution when the only support you have is your local food bank, where you live in an unheated home facing possible eviction. What is moral about poverty and destitution Mr Cameron. Are you proud that the lives of many people are a misery as a result of your reforms and that many have resorted to suicide – you can’t get more desperate than that can you?
Here is Cameron’s strong rebuke to Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, who said recent changes had left many in “hunger and destitution”.
“I respect his view but I also disagree with it deeply.”
“It is sometimes said that the church should not get involved in politics,”
“Many of the great political questions of our time are also moral questions – we should not be surprised and nor should we be dismissive when members of the clergy make their views known.
“But neither should political leaders be afraid to respond.”
“Our long-term economic plan for Britain is not just about doing what we can afford, it is also about doing what is right.
“Nowhere is that more true than in welfare.
“For me the moral case for welfare reform is every bit as important as making the numbers add up.”
He said it was “wrong” that people are “trapped in a cycle of dependency” or to “reward” people who can work but do not.
“But our welfare reforms go beyond that alone – they are about giving new purpose, new opportunity, new hope – and yes, new responsibility to people who had previously been written off with no chance.
Many people do not work because there are not enough jobs available for them and many of the jobs that are available are low paid and or zero hours , not real jobs. Lets not forget the conservatives destroyed our industry. People are not unemployed because they are lazy, they are unemployed because there is not enough work as manufacturing was taken abroad so that greedy corporations could make bigger profits by using cheap labour at the expense of British workers. People who are chronically ill or disabled do not choose to be so and would rather be well and able to work than subsist on the meagre benefits that remain, if indeed any benefit is available to them.
Read more of his warped reasoning, don’t overlook “Of course, we are in the middle of a long and difficult journey turning our country around.” That means difficult decisions to get our deficit down, making sure that the debts of this generation are not our children’s to inherit.
It was only last week or so ago that he claimed Britain was a rich country and could afford to pay for the flood damage. So despite the so-called deficit there’s’ money to pay for repairs to the middle class flooded homes in the south but no money for disabled and sick people and the unemployed – the poor.
Read more in the Daily Telegraph
Cutting benefits part of a ‘moral mission’, Cameron tells new Cardinal
David Cameron describes benefits cuts as part of a ‘moral mission’ after Archbishop of Westminster warned of the ‘disgrace’ of people left ‘destitute’
What is this bizarre trend of politicians like Cameron writing articles concerning their toxic ideologies in media such as the telegraph or his earlier rendition on benefits in the Huffington Post? I suppose if nothing else it give us some insight into how they think and a chance to respond.
Here are comments of mine I wrote sometime ago in response to another of Cameron’s rants in the above mentioned Huffington Post.
Please note: I wrote this a while back there may be some government policy changes since then, though these will most likely be of detriment rather than positive
Here is a link to Cameron’s poisonous rhetoric if you can stomach it:
The Welfare Reform Bill Will Tackle the Blight of Welfare Dependency
Here are my comments
Today marks a historic step in the biggest welfare revolution in over 60 years. My government has taken bold action to make work pay, while protecting the vulnerable.
No Cameron this marks a day when your morally bankrupt government takes a step backwards to darker times that most of us thought were long gone, when you undid the moral progress of previous generations.
Your government has no sense of decency, of morality, of compassion or empathy, as one poster on an internet forum so rightly says referring to your government, “they have no right to call themselves human beings“.
These reforms will change lives for the better, giving people the help they need, while backing individual responsibility so that they can escape poverty, not be trapped in it.
This is nothing but a blatant lie, a sick tired rhetoric. A significant majority of disabled people will see a reduction in their income. No one will see an increase. Many will be forced into work they are too sick to do as a result of corrupt biased and inaccurate ATOS work capability assessments. Many unemployed people will have benefits sanctioned if they refuse a stint of workfare, your government’s forced labour programme. Many, cancer patients, will find themselves on time limited benefits and thereafter having to depend on a partner if he or she earns more than £7,500. Your government’s plans are designed to throw both disabled and the unemployed into poverty. Even before these reforms benefit payments were grossly insufficient, now they are totally inadequate. How the hell are sick and disabled people supposed to escape poverty when they are too ill to work or the unemployed when there are few jobs – about five people for every vacancy?
Past governments have talked about reform, while watching the benefits bill sky rocket and generations languish on the dole and dependency.
Benefits have sky rocketed as a result of the loss of our industry as a consequence of previous Tory policies. There are no jobs because all manufacturing is now undertaken in China so that greedy corporations can make more profit as a result of cheap labour.
This government is delivering it. Our new law will mark the end of the culture that said a life on benefits was an acceptable alternative to work.
You are so deluded, though I rather think this is merely more propaganda. Do you seriously consider that the vast majority of unemployed people have made a conscious decision to live on the puny amount of Job Seekers allowance as opposed to a full week’s wage, even the inadequate basic minimum! Surely in all honesty you do not believe that people deliberately make themselves unemployed when the consequences are so dire, such as losing their homes for instance.
While we’ve been putting in place a sensible, modern welfare system that protects the vulnerable, our opponents have shown they are on the side of Britain’s ‘something for nothing’ culture.
Tell me how precisely are you protecting the most vulnerable, surely not the ruling which prevents young disabled people who have never worked due to illness or disability, from claiming “contributory” ESA. This was a forty-year old exemption whereby the most severely disabled young people, who are unlikely ever to be able to work through no fault of their own, are accredited with National Insurance contributions so they can receive contributory ESA. Under your government’s new ruling, young people will be assessed for means-tested benefits on their parents’ or partners’ income and be denied the dignity of having an income of their own. Surely this ruling adds to their vulnerability and moreover denies them any dignity or autonomy.
Incidentally this contravenes articles of the United Nation Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for instance article 2 a “Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;”
How does the fact that four in ten disabled children – 320,000 – are living in poverty in the UK demonstrate how your modern welfare system protects the vulnerable. Tell me how does reducing the benefits parents receive from £54 from tax credits to £27 a week under the new Universal Credit system alleviate the above poverty issue and protect vulnerable people. This new ruling will plunge thousands of families deeper into poverty.
According to End Child Poverty
4 million children – one in three – are currently living in poverty in the UK, one of the highest rates in the industrialised world. This is a shocking figure given the wealth of our nation.
We’ve stood up against the abuse that left taxpayers footing the bills for people on £30,000 or even £50,000 a year in benefits. It’s a fair principle: a family out of work on benefits shouldn’t be paid more than the average family in work.
Sadly you have not stood up to the abuse of greedy bankers who are responsible for the economic crisis not the unemployed, the sick and the disabled. Time to stop blaming the economic crisis on benefit claimants, propaganda rather reminiscent of pre-war Germany, and place the blame where it really lies. A “Fair principle“! fair, you do not know the meaning of the word. The number of people on such a high benefit of £30,000 to £50,000 per year is miniscule, probably non-existent as it has proved impossible to find any statistics. Moreover perhaps it is time that the average family received more in wages instead of having to subsist on basic minimum. Rather than penalise the sick and the unemployed you might be better to turn your attention to ensuring people receive a liveable wage as an incentive to work. Raise the basic minimum wage to exceed the amount paid on benefit rather than the reverse is surely the most ethical route to fairness.
This is a core part of the government’s task of turning around the legacy of debt, overspending and waste we inherited.
Well at least you are being honest here. We all of course know this despite your rhetoric that the welfare reforms are not meant to improve the lot of the most vulnerable, or go to the people who need it. The welfare reform bill is merely a measure to save money to pay back the deficit that was not caused by the sick, disabled and the unemployed. So do not pretend otherwise as with the above statement you surely contradict yourself
We want money to go to people who need it, not subsidising the consequences of our broken society.
Britain is a broken society alright, poisoned by your toxic rhetoric, broken by the unbridled greed of capitalism allowed to run rampant.
By reforming welfare we will get people into fulfilling jobs, not abandon them to poverty and dependency, save billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and make sure those who really need help get it.
Fulfilling jobs! What jobs, surely not work for nothing Work Fare schemes that allow big businesses to profit from free labour all paid for by the tax payer. “Those who really need it” ,tell me who precisely are the people who are getting help, certainly not the 500,000 DLA recipients targeted not to the meet the criteria to qualify for the new PIP assessment in much the same way as the biased ESA work capability assessments. This is the second time you have made this or a similar statement, who are you trying to convince.
That’s compassionate modern government in action.
Compassionate!!!! Really you do not know the meaning of the word and you went to Eaton!. This statement turns my stomach because of its utter insincerity, in fact I find the word compassionate when it is applied to your government disturbing as though you occupy some alternate reality to the rest of us. Such is usually referred to as insanity.
It’s also a huge tribute to the Secretary of State for Welfare, Iain Duncan Smith, who has worked tirelessly and with real moral purpose in tackling the blight of welfare dependency.
Duncan Smith has worked tirelessly alright to destroy the already difficult lives of the most vulnerable in our society, including disabled children. “Moral purpose“, please look up moral in the dictionary, sadly you are confused about the meaning of this word. Here is a definition, Morality: “conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct“. Yes the word morality can be arbitrary – well it certainly is when you use it. However most people associate the use of the word in context with the aforementioned definition.
Are you referring to absolute morality, such as not to kill regardless of mitigating context such as consequence or the intention, though with hundreds of suicides as a result of your welfare reforms, for which many would say you and Duncan Smith were responsible, I rather think that you are not referring to absolute morality. Another example of absolute morality would be not to lie, to tell the absolute truth. Now with the pre-election promises of not reducing the winter fuel payment to pensioners and not raising VAT and protecting our NHS again it appears you do not follow the code of absolute morality. You concealed your plans about your intended privatisation of our NHS denying the electorate a vote on the issue. As for the specific promise of protecting the NHS budget, your government has axe NHS funding by nearly £1billion – despite a promise to increase health spending. Also concerning the NHS you promised an end to hospital closures and no more top-down reorganisations.
In case it has slipped your mind when you made the above nauseous statement about Duncan Smith’s moral purpose here is a list of all your broken promises which indicate to me your lack of understanding of the word moral, at least according to most people’s concept of morality:
http://cameron-cloggysmoralcompass.blogspot.com/p/coalition-christmas.html – Oh My God! I don’t beleive it, you actually promised to scrap tuition fees.
Please explain how you justify these lies and blatant deceit and still feel comfortable using the word moral.
Most definitely these examples strongly suggest that your do not adhere to the philosophy of absolute morality.
Therefore you must be referring to relative morality, morality from your own perspective; what is moral for one person, group or culture may not be so for another. If you think it is moral behaviour to plunge sick and disabled into poverty including thousands of children and leave young permanently disabled at the mercy of partners or parents for their income you must be referring to relative morality, the code of which can be used to justify almost anything .
Though even relative morality usually has a more ethical mitigating exception rather than the justification of allowing sick and disabled people to suffer poverty and deprivation in order to save the government money.
Here’s an example for you of how most people expect a government to behave in order to refer to its actions as moral :
The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life . . . the children; those who are in the twilight of life . . . the elderly; and those who are in the shadow of life . . . the sick . . . the needy . . . and the disabled.”
Hubert Humphrey 38th US Vice-President
Sorry you and “your” government have failed this test
Relative or absolutely morality? This is a deep philosophical issue about which I am not qualified to elaborate upon. My own ethical moral code however tells me that your government’s welfare reform bill is a grave moral injustice which hopefully will one day be recognised as a crime against society’s most vulnerable.
“The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich, the rights of workers over the maximisation of profits.”
Pope John Paul II
A quotation that perhaps Duncan Smith, whom it is alleged is a Roman Catholic, should heed.