Tories now care for "poor people"

[Lyev]

I listened to most of an interview with UK prime-minister David Cameron on BBC Radio 4 this morning and it angered me so I wanted to start a thread about it. His basic rationale (I hate all these buzzwords and cheap catchphrases; "big society", "we're all in this together", to "govern in the national interest" etc.) was that higher-earners -- defined as those who earn above £40,000 per year, I think -- have the money to give up a little extra to help lower-earners; people under £20,000 a year. Briefly, that is what the benefit reform fundamentally is, I think, although please could someone clear it up for me if I have it wrong? Anyway, here's an article, from a wishy washy centre-left position:

Big victory for IDS on welfare reform (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/benefits-system-work-welfare)
Posted by Samira Shackle - 05 October 2010 16:32

Current benefits system to be replaced with universal credit in radical shake-up, after weeks of negotiations.

Iain Duncan Smith confirmed today that the current welfare system will be replaced by a universal credit.

It's a significant victory for the Work and Pensions Secretary, who has been locked into a lengthy tussle with the Treasury over the plans, which will initially cost more to implement. The Chancellor, George Osborne, hinted at the move in his address to conference yesterday.

Announcing the move, Duncan Smith promised it would "restore fairness and simplicity to a complex, outdated and wildly expensive benefits system."

This is a huge shake-up to the structure of the welfare state, supposedly aimed at reducing long-term dependency and benefit fraud. The new credit will replace a range of benefits -- including housing and incapacity benefits, and income support -- with a single payment. The scheme will begin in 2013, with the hope of transferring a large number of people over by the end of this parliament in 2015.

In a heartfelt address, to an enthusiastic crowd (he received a standing ovation both at the beginning and end of his speech), IDS promised that "If you are genuinely sick, disabled, or retired, you have nothing to fear".

"The Conservative Party now has concern for the poor running through its DNA," he told delegates, while also playing to the audience by saying that their hard-earned tax money going on those who "can't be bothered" to work is the flipside of the fairness issue.

The former party leader -- who has undergone a considerable political transformation in the last few years -- expressed many honourable aims, such as making work pay to end cycles of welfare dependency:
No longer will they be able to say it isn't worth their while going to work. No longer will they be trapped in a complex system which means they have to ask an advisor if they will better off in work than on benefits. We will change this broken system to help those at the bottom end make a new start and change their lives through work.
In this context, the moralistic diction about those who choose to do the "right thing" (working) and those who don't is somewhat distasteful. It is simply not always a choice, even for those who wouldn't qualify as the "most needy" under normal circumstances.

NOTE: He also announced a new enterprise scheme, offering up to £2,000 and business mentoring to help unemployed people start small businessesMy basic idea about such reforms that in a vile, patronizing manner, purport to be "caring for poor people" are such a bag of shit. Disregarding the actual facts (that, for example, the wealth gap in the UK between rich and poor hasn't been as worse now since slavery) this affirms my original convictions. Cameron was talking about those that earn above £40,000 per year as if they were rich. Comparatively, yes, they are, next to a single mum struggling on £18,000 or something. However, think about David Cameron (and the rest of the cabinet). There's only two people in the cabinet that aren't millionaires. Cameron himself is worth in excess of £30 million. So, such a reform will drive slightly more "well-off" working class families (middle-class?) into a lower earning bracket, make them poorer, whilst leaving the uber-rich safe and dry of course. And I think this also illustrates why purely income-based class analysis is flawed.

I think such discussions as these (refuting, from an anti-capitalist, Marxist perspective, such nonsense as the "big society" etc.) are a really important thing to occupy ourselves with at the moment. If for no other reason, I suppose I am simply posting this here to clarify and enrich my own arguments. Thoughts?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't think there's much point discussing their deceitful rhetoric. If they want to help the poor, why don't they forget all about child benefits and raise income tax for high earners? Or issue a bank levy?

Or get rid of the unelected house of lords? Or cut their own wages? etc. etc.

The policy masks itself as a 'fair' way, of us all being 'in it together', and as if the middle-class are paying for this crisis too. But in reality, it widens further the gap between the rich and the poor. As you pointed out, Cameron and his chums remained untouched whilst the relatively well-to-do join the ranks of the workers who have been, and will continue to be, trampled by these policies.

[Red Panther]

What really gets me about the Tories (other than the fact that they speak bull, govern for the capitalists, are right-wing etc.) is that they cut our jobs and services, then are trying to make it harder for workers to strike in response!
We need to collectively, as a class, show cameron the middle finger and strike and occupy anyway! We'll show them what they can do with their cuts!

[Q]

Tories now care for "poor people"

My first response was:

http://typo.graphr.net/images/owl-orly.jpg

Why do they even try? To make such statements when in opposition is one thing, but they're in government now, cutting, cutting, cutting away. This statement then is transparent bullshit.

[Lyev]

I agree with you what say, basically. Thanks for responding. I just wanted to discuss this a bit because I often think when I debate I get shut up pretty easily because I don't much about "mainstream" politics, if you will. In other words, reformist politics, as in individual nuances in policies etc., and so when Marxists and anarchists debate with social-democrat, neoliberals and the like we are often on two different wavelengths. The latter are arguing from within the confines of capitalism, whereas the former aren't. Do you know what I mean? So I want to try and polish up on my knowledge of reformist politics, with the above definition(s) in mind. I find it beneficial in a debate, because someone with a reformist, within-capitalism mindset won't be familiar with the way far-leftists approach such a debate, it helps to translate things into a reformist scenario, or, rather than simply say something like "Cameron is bourgeois, reforms such as these obviously prove that, now let's have socialism", it helps to say why such a reform is a reflection of the bourgeoisie pursuing their class interests, why the social relations peculiar to capitalism necessitate such reform etc. I know you're not quite doing this in your post, but it often seems the point of view of some leftists to dismiss such debates as "bourgeois", "reformist", "not worth our time" or whatever, but it's a really important issue to engage people on, in my opinion.

[Lyev]

And this is also something I worry about when debating cuts in general. I could mention that nationalisation of key areas of industry can boost government revenue, or that we should raise taxes for the richest layer of society, or that we should cut defence spending, or withdraw wasteful PFIs fom the NHS, but then without linking this directly to a struggle for socialism it becomes left-of-centre liberal nonsense. And trying to debate by simply saying the only solution is "abolition of capitalism, and social revolution" or whatever doesn't really do it for me. For a reformist they argue "cuts are an economic necessity", and I think it's pretty easy to acknowledge that austerity is quite necessary within capitalism (as Marxists or anarchists, we would be lying if we said we didn't think we know how a capitalist economy works best). So, I try and shift the debate over, whilst listing things that the government could other than cut, to firstly, people do not want cuts and secondly we refuse to take them complacently. So another question then, how do you folks relate the whole cuts debate to a struggle for socialism, and the right to strike and work etc.?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I agree with you what say, basically. Thanks for responding. I just wanted to discuss this a bit because I often think when I debate I get shut up pretty easily because I don't much about "mainstream" politics, if you will. In other words, reformist politics, as in individual nuances in policies etc., and so when Marxists and anarchists debate with social-democrat, neoliberals and the like we are often on two different wavelengths. The latter are arguing from within the confines of capitalism, whereas the former aren't. Do you know what I mean? So I want to try and polish up on my knowledge of reformist politics, with the above definition(s) in mind. I find it beneficial in a debate, because someone with a reformist, within-capitalism mindset won't be familiar with the way far-leftists approach such a debate, it helps to translate things into a reformist scenario, or, rather than simply say something like "Cameron is bourgeois, reforms such as these obviously prove that, now let's have socialism", it helps to say why such a reform is a reflection of the bourgeoisie pursuing their class interests, why the social relations peculiar to capitalism necessitate such reform etc. I know you're not quite doing this in your post, but it often seems the point of view of some leftists to dismiss such debates as "bourgeois", "reformist", "not worth our time" or whatever, but it's a really important issue to engage people on, in my opinion.

I agree to an extent. It does help to be able to understand the rhetoric of social democrats and the policies they implement, so you can tear them apart.

But when you think of it in that way, you will still end up denouncing these ideas and policies as 'bourgeois' and in the interests of capital as that is what they are. The only difference is that you'll be able to do it with more eloquent language.

What you will benefit from understanding these policies and being able to criticize them is the ability to criticize them with a systematic argument, which will naturally lead to you pointing out your alternative; socialism. I often argue with Tories on specific policies such as the one in question, and half an hour later we end up in an ideological battle, between socialism and capitalism!

I guess it helps to be able to pick away at the policies of capitalists, you're right in saying that we do need to do this, in order to make our arguments more appealing.

[Mk3KaBaL]

basically cameron is trying to get the "cynical edge" by pretending he wants to help the poor as he attacks their healthcare and education systems, at this rate i wouldnt be suprised if he attempts to reinstitute the plutarchy of the 1800's. by next year he may even have paid commissions going into Iraq.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Sounds like the swedish rifght-wing party moderaterna who in the election of 2006, launched themselfes as the new "workers party", unfortunatley they succeded.

[RebelDog]

My first response was:

http://typo.graphr.net/images/owl-orly.jpg

Why do they even try? To make such statements when in opposition is one thing, but they're in government now, cutting, cutting, cutting away. This statement then is transparent bullshit.

War is peace, truth is lies etc, and now caring for poor people means attacking them and having them pay the cost of bailing out the rich and their private institutions. Most of what we are fed is best understood when inverted, because it becomes much closer to the truth when it is turned on its head.

[Mather]

Why would anyone take the verbal diarrhea that comes out of Cameron's mouth seriously? All of these annoying catchphrases and marketing one-liners such as the "big society" and the "national interest" are the only thing this government has to offer us, with everything else such as our welfare state, social services etc, they have nothing to offer us but cuts, cuts and more cuts.

I really hope that the working class and the labour movement in Britain can get together on this and fight these cuts and this government offensive to dismantle the welfare state.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Why would anyone take the verbal diarrhea that comes out of Cameron's mouth seriously? All of these annoying catchphrases and marketing one-liners such as the "big society" and the "national interest" are the only thing this government has to offer us, with everything else such as our welfare state, social services etc, they have nothing to offer us but cuts, cuts and more cuts.

I really hope that the working class and the labour movement in Britain can get together on this and fight these cuts and this government offensive to dismantle the welfare state.

Considering that the labour movement is largely onboard with this I doubt it will be succesful.