What is the difference...

between this:




"This poster is from the 1930’s, and promotes the Nazi monthly Neues Volk (New People}, the organ of the party’s racial office. The text reads: “This genetically ill person will cost our people’s community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP.”

Text and poster from here.

and this:

Almost a million people on sickness benefit for a decade.

According to figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions, 889,000 people have spent the last ten years on sickness benefits, costing an average of £4.2billion a year.

?

Another great post...

From Ouch! Wheelthing said:

I thought New Labour had plumbed the depths of depravity with their attacks on disabled people; attacks which gave a green light to rags such as the Daily Heil to run what are nothing more than an open-season on disabled people.

It transpires that New Labour has merely given pointers for this nasty coalition to really attack us. We are now living under a constant barrage of vicious attacks; these attacks are being led by ministers and people high up in power.

They are completing the demonization of disabled people. If this isn’t incitement to hatred then I’m not sure if I understand the term. This government is whipping people up into a frenzy of hatred and resentment of disabled people; we’re being blamed for the collapse of the economy and the deficit – which by the way this government is milking for all it’s worth; this country has got through far worse economic issues than this in the past 65 years.

Just as Osborne understood the difference between DLA and Incapacity Benefit before the Budget. He still went along with the expedient device of conflating the two in order to score a cheap political advantage; and, get large swathes of the voting public behind the draconian measures that they, the ConDems, intend raining down on largely defenceless disabled people – sorry if I’m painting disabled people here as vulnerable victims; but, that’s exactly what this inhuman government is doing.

Similarly, newspapers know full well the differences between DLA and ESA and IB. They are fully aware that DLA is not means-tested and can be claimed whilst working. Yet, it suits their nasty Nazi-like agenda to conflate the take-up and entitlement of all disability benefits because it makes for more sensational reading.

Why cuts won’t work.

If lots of public sector workers lose their jobs, they will go on benefits and the welfare bill will go up. They will also have reduced spending power and so the private companies that directly or indirectly depend on their custom will fold. As more and more people are put out of work, the welfare bill will mushroom and there will be a vast pool of people with reduced spending power not paying income tax. I suppose it’s comparable to climate cycles – you interfere with them at your peril.

I hope I’m wrong.

Tory Government breaking Equality Laws?

It is a legal requirement for the government, when making policy, to give due regard to equality duties. Even Theresa May recognises this and has written to the chancellor about his Budget. They were supposed to carry out 'equality impact assessments.' Were any done?

I hope somebody will take the government to court for their failure to give due regard to their disability equality duties when drafting their vile budget.

All hands on deck, ladies and gentleman, let us spare no effort to wipe the smirk off Osborne's face.

Further reading:

Budget cuts could break equality laws, Theresa May warned chancellor

Fawcett Society in legal challenge to 'unfair' Budget

Factoring in gender equality can prevent costly errors

How to Divide and Rule.

A great post from Ouch! I asked:

I can't get my head around it - it's always the *super* rich who despise welfare so much, the likes of H.L. Hunt. If you're so well off as that, why does it matter to you if somebody gets welfare?

Sunny Clouds replied:

It's because if you want to stay rich, you want to exploit ordinary people. The best way to do that without them all revolting against you and overturning your power is to do two things that overlap - set one against the other and make some look down on others.

Think about it.

Two people - benefits claimant and working man.

Working man is made to feel that benefits claimant is ripping him off. He is barely better off than benefits claimant (or so he thinks) and he is encouraged to resent benefits claimant.

Whilst he is busy venting that resentment, he is not demanding better pay himself. He is too busy lambasting benefits claimant for getting almost as much as he does on minimum wage to join together with other working men to demand better wages.

Meanwhile, benefits claimant has been portrayed as a lesser being, so if he speaks out about his position, no one wants to be seen to side with him. The venom heaped upon him by working man makes him an incentive for others to keep working so as not to become another benefits claimant themselves. Again, working man is so desperate not to be seen as a benefits claimant that he will accept minimum wage.

To reinforce this divide, benefits paid to benefits claimant on no other income or little other income are described as handouts. That he may have paid many years tax is is not mentioned. The importance of supporting the most needy in society is not mentioned. The risk of working man at some point needing benefits is not mentioned.

However, some benefits are paid to middle class man. If he is not wealthy, he's described as a benefits scrounger and reclassified as benefits man. If he's wealthy, he's not. He's paid his taxes so he's entitled to his child benefit, although he probably won't mention it very often. If he's wealthy, his child benefit will never be described as a handout, nor will his bus pass or winter fuel payment.

Divide and rule has a long history. It is very effective at making rich people richer and poor people poorer.

Note, however, that it is important that not too many people starve. It is also important that working man has just enough to enjoy himself with. Bread and circuses as the Romans would have it, or Booze and television as we would have it. If you take that away, there is a risk that working man will unite with benefits claimant and revolt.

Portrait of a Tory Voter.

Question Time

I've found what looks like a very promising website, which appears to have been designed to promote dialogue between the public and public figures, such as politicians. I don't think it's quite there yet, but it operates on good principles of transparency and accountability - the way things should be. Feel free to join in and ask your own questions. Here's some of mine.