Wednesday, 5 June 2013

"Labour 'must' go for contributory welfare, not more means testing."

My response to Labourlist:

I hope any new crackdown on lobbyists will treat "think-tanks" as lobbyists - because that is precisely what they are.

"What is the big idea? Focusing scarce resources on the most needy, as yesterday’s announcement suggests, or strengthening ‘the old principle of contribution’ as Liam Byrne promised not so long ago?"

Questions like this, apart from being a 'false dichotomy,' are strong evidence of amorality - more specifically, Social Darwinism. A diluted form of 'If you can't work, tough, starve.'

I asked both Demos and O'Leary on Twitter how many disabled people Demos employ; both chose not to answer. If you care about the relevance of my question with regard to contributions, see:

Demos must be treated for what they are: corporate lobbyists - and be shown the door.


I e-mailed Demos about three weeks ago and asked:


Please may I ask how many disabled people Demos employ, expressed both as a number and percentage.


I received no reply. Another reason, as if another were needed, that organisations such as this should have no say or influence on public policy.

No comments: