The two papers that most love to bash the state and
welfare scroungers are united this morning in their horror at George Osborne's supposed assault on middle Britain.
I think glibness, I think ideologically based rhetoric, I think trying to divide up society between the haves and have — nots and mobilise the middle ground against the rich is as unacceptable as we have from elsewhere in the political spectrum trying to mobilise the middle ground against what they call
welfare scroungers but are actually poor people who have little and want more.
Not exact matches
Punitive conditionality policies feed off an «us and them» perception of
welfare: they — «the benefit
scroungers» — get it, while we — the «respectable taxpayers» — don't.
We see time and time again that many groups won't put money in the
welfare and benefits section because of «benefit
scroungers».
The public's hostility to the benefits bill is, in large part, due to the commonly - held view (articulated by Field) that it encourages
scroungers: in the same poll, more than one in four respondents said they thought at least half of all
welfare claimants were «
scroungers who lie about their circumstances to obtain higher
welfare benefits».
The public's suspicion of benefit «
scroungers» seems to be fading - potentially giving critics of the coalition's
welfare reforms a louder voice in the debate.
A very similar line is being used to target disabled people as
welfare «
scroungers» and «fraudsters» by the government and by companies reassessing disability support, such as Atos.
But Labour had three green papers on
welfare, and three programs on the same day on the BBC about benefit
scroungers.
Labour's awkward compromise in this area makes it look like they can't decide, while Labour voters especially applaud the Tory approach to a get tough policy on
welfare — they are often the people who see abuse of the system at first hand, and for them, fairness is about stamping on
scroungers and shirkers.
Instead of arriving at the position of either backing the government's
welfare bill or forever being depicted as the friend of the
scrounger, shadow ministers should have been making a big argument about the regressive nature of the Budget, the lamentable symbolism of effectively scrapping child poverty targets and the removal of in - work benefits to those eponymous hard - working families.
Figures obtained from Department of Work and Pensions suggest some
welfare reforms aren't hitting «
scroungers» but the most vulnerable.
Kingsley argues that the impulse to try to prevent these refugees from re-settlement is wrong - headed and that contrary to their portrayal as drains on the
welfare system of wherever they land, «people who travel for so many miles through such horrific conditions in order to find work can not accurately be portrayed as lazy benefit -
scroungers.»