Friday, 11 January 2013

Social Security or Welfare - loaded words

 
In the supplement to yesterday's Guardian, there was an article by Zoe Williams about the false "skivers v strivers" arguments peddled by Ian Duncan-Smith and other Coalition Ministers.

The comment was made that everyone now talks about welfare benefits rather than social security payments. I, too, did this in my piece the underserving rich earlier this week. Therefore, I have resolved that in future I will always refer to social secuity benefits.

Like most of the neo-liberal agenda and propoganda, talking of "welfare" as a derogatory term comes from the USA. It is used to demonise those who do not have a job or cannot work. It infers that there should be no sense that anyone should be entitled to financial support from the state. A few years ago, there was the abusive term "welfare mothers" applied to lone parents.

British politicians have anbandoned the historic term "social security", because it suggests that working people have an entitlement to benefits when they lose their jobs or become unable to work. The whole post war-settlement Welfare State, created by Labour, is being unpicked piece by piece.

I having heard that certain MPs, mainly Tories, are saying in private that they should have a 32% pay increase. As many people consider MPs to be skivers rather than strivers, I wonder how they would explain their sense of entitlement to their constituents?

No comments:

Post a Comment