The Labour party is
very much back in its right wing ‘comfort zone’ of framing working age welfare
benefits with recourse to ‘scroungers’ and those taking the ‘Michael’ (Nevitt,
2025). Only five months ago Liz Kendall promised that Labour would avoid the
blame culture of her Conservative predecessors in their incessant anti welfare
salvos and “divisive rhetoric that blames people and doesn’t support them…I
know people worry about this, but I want to say, we are on your side. We are
not going to write you off and blame you. We take our responsibilities
seriously. We’re going to bust a gut to give you the support you need to build
a better life” (Kendal cited by Savage, 2024). However, Leicester Liz and
Chancellor Reeves caveat such support in the ‘knowledge’ that the welfare bill
as it currently exists and future projections are ‘unsustainable’. This is a
political argument and arguably a specious one at that although that will have
to be more fully unpacked in a separate article.
It was always ridiculously naïve to expect that Kendall and others of her ilk would keep to the script. Morrison (2024) suggests there were ‘disquieting signs’ that Labour politicians speak with forked tongue as official policy positions constantly invoke authoritarian measures for those individuals who are felt to be insufficiently compliant. This delicate dance of the progressive language of inclusion sits rather uneasily against the muscular macho diktats of blunt state coercion, felt to be an essential bolthole in placating the militant figure of a dour hard pressed taxpayer.
And so it proved eminently predictable that Leicester Liz would eventually go full Clinton – you can never be too tough on welfare. The gift that keeps on giving or an itch that cannot be ignored, Labour politicians find themselves time and again invoking the same historical anti-welfare tropes that were once largely the preserve of the right wing. Kendall knows full well her interventions are within keeping to the idea of a ‘hostile climate’ for working age welfare. That a not insignificant coterie of claimants (usually careful to avoid precise figures) are deemed to be taking the ‘Michael’ is of great utility by delegitimising welfare payments and bolstering stigmatisation. That these things exercise us so far more than corporate misdemeanours, when the former is but a minor monetary fraction of the latter is an enduring mystery of human psychology and is a sobering reminder as to the limitations of fraternity.
Maybe the real ‘mickey’ takers are politicians strutting round as if they actually constitute a legitimate government on the basis of 20% vote share. Without a democratic mandate, these scroungers exhibit psychopathic levels of narcissism and self-entitlement. The public would be advised to refrain from giving the likes of Leicester Liz (see Jaffer, 2024) any future handouts, as doing so is likely to continue to foster a pathological dependency culture.
Jaffer,
K (2024) ‘Labour minister Liz Kendall is urged to refund taxpayer money used to
heat her second home - after axing £300 winter fuel payment for millions of
pensioners’
(Accessed
11 February 2025)
Morrison,
James (2024) ‘Getting Britain to work without blaming ‘scroungers’ – can
Starmer change the narrative?’
Available
at:
(Accessed
11 February 2025)
Nevett,
J (2025) ‘Some on benefits are 'taking the mickey', says minister’
Available
at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5gpyv4dnwo
(Accessed
11 February 2025)
Savage,
M (2024) ‘It’s time to end blame culture over benefits bill, says Labour
minister’
Available
at:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment