By Iain Martin
Is there anyone left in the upper reaches of the Labour party with
Tony Blair's feel for the instincts of millions of Labour voters and
potential Labour voters? Say what you like about Blair (in the comments
below) but he would never have got on the wrong side of a row about a
scumbag who is serving a life sentence for killing six of his children.
The poor children's cruel misfortune was to have Mick Philpott for a
father.
Perfectly sensibly, the Chancellor answered a question put to him about the case.
Labour's over-the-top reaction to these comments suggests that the
party has, on the subject of welfare, completely lost the plot. Osborne
pointed out that there is a debate to be had about whether the taxpayer
should subsidise, through the benefits system, the lifestyles of those
who choose to have 17 children and not work. Quite right. It cuts across
party lines. Whether they detest him and his party or not, many Labour
voters will have agreed. Look at the polling on welfare.
Yet Labour MP Andy McDonald described Osborne's comments as a "total
disgrace". Ed Balls chipped in: "Chancellors have to think very
carefully before they comment on the issues of the day. How they do so
says a lot about the character of their chancellorship. That is why I
believe George Osborne's calculated decision to use the shocking and
vile crimes of Mick Philpott to advance a political argument is the
cynical act of a desperate chancellor. For the Chancellor to link this
wider debate to this shocking crime is nasty and divisive and demeans
his office."
But Osborne clearly did think very carefully before commenting. He
went out of his way to say that Philpott was responsible for the
appalling crime. What he did after that was to pose a perfectly
legitimate question which will have chimed with millions of Britons.
Good for him. And I am no knee-jerk defender of George Osborne, having
first called for him to be moved in 2008.
Osborne said yesterday: "Philpott is responsible for these absolutely
horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation.
The courts are responsible for sentencing him. But I think there is a
question for government and for society about the welfare state – and
the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state – subsidising lifestyles
like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."
The overwhelming majority of voters think that something has gone
wrong. They are ahead of the politicians on this. What was designed as a
safety net has mutated into a machine for the perpetuation of misery
and idleness. Of course a great many deserving cases rely on the welfare
safety net. No-one is suggesting it be removed. People want there to be
a helping hand for those who fall.
But at its extremes the welfare system incentivises indolence and
fertilises bad behaviour. These are not Right-wing views. To not
understand this you have to be either a great big metropolitan softie or
a leader writer for The Guardian.
1 comment:
To quote LTC West-A Hammock.
A safety net is not a hammock. Although it has turned into one. Here and obviously from your original home...and damn near everywhere.
Your correct-this isn't a right wing view point...some issues aren't/shouldn't be labeled right or left wing views..some things are self evident. It is logical and rational to identify a safety net vs.a hammock. Not rocket science.
Glad you stated the voters are realizing this there. Some may not have liked the timing of Osbourne's statement..but it is true.
How many Philpots are laying in a hammock chill'n and collecting $ cause they don't want to work and also have child after child for the Govt to support? That is the disgrace..not Osbourne's statement.
Sounds like Labour wants to hide behind the death of the children to not address the inconvenience of the swamp they created.
Sounds familiar.
It is far past time to call out that that net is now a large hammock for a good majority.
Post a Comment