Not wanting to stay far behind the Tories, Labour came up with a solution to the soaring benefits bill:
One central idea under consideration is the creation of a flexible payments system offering higher benefits to those who have been employed for longer and have therefore made more national insurance contributions.
What a great thought! Let’s make them (us) all suffer. Those on long-term disability benefits and those who cannot find a job because there are no jobs to be found should live in penury. No job, no status, no human rights. Jumping on the skiver’s lifestyle choice bandwagon to steal some votes from the Tories is morally reprehensible. Is Labour not meant to be a political party representing the working classes?
Why can politicians not see that the only way to make work pay is to increase the minimum wage to a living one? I know that loads of people in work have the same standard of living as my partner and I: poverty. However, lowering our benefits will not make it better. It will just make it seem that those on the minimum wage are better off because they still can choose between topping up their meters or eating. We will just have to chose what to take from supermarket bins so that we can heat it up on a bonfire made from newspapers salvaged from the paper bin.
Labour is also economically wrong – if a person is judged to have insufficient contributions:
– they will not be offered a council house; however, to prevent homelessness the taxpayers will have to pay a private landlord market rates (an extra £100-200 pounds in my area) or for a room in a bed and breakfast;
– they will suffer through no fault of their own – eg if you become disabled and permanently unable to work at the age of 22 – what then?
Social housing and social welfare were introduced to support those unfortunate enough unable to do it themselves. They were not meant to be a reward for health and being lucky in the workplace. You cannot leave us destitute so as to make the working poor look better off on paper.