Former Lib Dem children’s minister Sarah Teather unleashes something of a broadside not just against the Coalition, but against all three political parties for their policies on the poorest in society, both benefit claimants and also immigrants and asylum-seekers:
There is nothing like insecurity to bring out the temptation to scapegoat. Instead of offering a bit of statesmanlike leadership, Conservative ministers have engaged repeatedly in crude opportunism, capitalising on fear. And so the battle is drawn: good against evil. Those without benefits against those who claim. Strivers against shirkers. The deserving against the undeserving.
Then, just before Easter, all parties chose to reignite that old flame: the immigrant against the local. Demonising successive groups of people makes us less empathetic, less cohesive – a vision, to me, that is the very definition of “Broken Britain”. And what of the subjects instrumentalised by this political game? They are placed further and further outside society, less able to change their own lot.
To demonstrate a tough stance against that most hated of groups, so-called “failed asylum seekers”, ministers in the last Labour government introduced a series of cards and vouchers to control what they could buy with the meagre rations we gave them. I know, from my work as a constituency MP, the humiliation, shame and practical barriers such schemes impose on those who are unable to return home for a whole host of reasons. Now local councils are using similar voucher and card-based schemes for today’s hate-group, the British poor.
You can read Sarah’s article in full in The Independent here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Liverpool Honours Eight Outstanding Citizens
The Prime Minister the UK needs
A wounded, but still feisty, Regional Candidates Committee meets...
Easter holidays family fun #Dundee
Will under-siege Reeves have to increase taxes after all?
Council by-election results scorecard 2024-2025
A 1922 campaign to reopen Medbourne railway station
The spring statement
Helen Dudden
Joseph Bourke
Nigel Jones
Robin Wells
Mary Reid
11 Comments
Rather than getting repeatedly irate it would be more helpful if Sarah would explain what it is about Osborne’s comments that she so objects to.
Her latest reference is to “the grubby little intervention by George Osborne on the Philpott case.”
A couple of days ago she was reported as saying:
“I am shocked and appalled that George Osborne has stooped so low as to make a crude political point out of the tragic deaths of six young children.”
and
“It is deeply irresponsible for such a senior politician to seek to capitalise on public anger about this case, and in doing so demonise anybody who receives any kind of welfare support.”
“demonise anybody who receives any kind of welfare support”
Sarah is in serious danger of undermining her argument by making such irresponsible claims. That is particularly ironic when she is complaining about irresponsibility on the part of others.
Be not blind to the fact that there are too many who abuse our welfare state and its benefits but at the same time apply a parallel mantra to the one in our legal system – better that ten guilty persons are acquitted and escape justice than one innocent be convicted and suffer injustice
Brilliant article from Sarah Teather. Osborne has gone too far. His words are divisive and nasty. Personally, I think he demeans the office of Chancellor.
So when you going to stop supporting the Tories in coalition? Until you do, you are part of it.
I was surprised by Obsbournes and, Camerons stances on this issue, especially when Ann Widdecombe had made such sensible comments that we have to work out the differences between the Philpott case and the welfare system. I like it when we get a handful of politicians get down with it, Ann Widdecombe is one of them and, I think it would have been sensible if you are in the unfortunate position of being in an Ivory Tower that you’d listen to her. Sadly this logic is lost on Cameron & Osbourne.
Good to see there is at least one Liberal Democrat who is willing to defend party principles, or should I correctly say “former” party principles.
Simon Shaw 7th Apr ’13 – 1:06pm – Its sad to see Liberal Democrats defending the indefensible.
The thing about this case is that it doesn’t even fit the narrative the Right are spinning around it. Aside from the fact that the guy had a long history of violence and abusive relationship towards his partners in and out of work,-as an ex-soldier in the services of the crown just like IDS ,no less.-both his wife and girlfriend were actually in work. This means they were technically the strivers Osbourne bangs on about and the benefits involved were working tax credits and child allowance, rather than JSA or DLA.
Osbourne’s comments were in truth fairly mild, but sought, like those from too many newspaper editorials, to make, capital by beating people with the wrong stick from astride the wrong hobby horse.. I also note wryly that firemen , like the police are employed , in the public sector. So well said Sarah
The problem with George Osborne’s comment was the fact he drew a link between the crimes of Michael Philpott and welfare reform. His crimes weren’t due to the welfare system but due to a floor in his own character. He would have wanted to control and abuse women without child benefit and he would have continued to father children without it too. It would b like saying we should get rid of insurance because of the few people who commit arson in order to claim, or micro chipping every person in the country to prevent crime. Both would be an overreaction as was Osborne’s linking of the two issues, following the example set by the Daily Mail. There are hundreds of thousands of us who need the support of the welfare system because of our disabilities, who are discriminated against by employers, which is the reason unemployment amongst the working age blind, just to give one example is %66, but the debate is framed by scrounging. It is hardly surprising that a member of the Conservative Party has used an extreme example to criticise the welfare system, after all that’s been the way throughout the whole debate over welfare reform. Sarah Teather was entirely correct to criticise the linkage.
@Ryan Dungallon
If you had properly read what I wrote you would see that I was not “defending the indefensible.”
I was merely criticising Sarah’s obvious inaccuracy in accusing someone of “demonising anybody who receives any kind of welfare support”. If you are defending that, then aren’t you the one who is defending the indefensible?
What is clear in this whole area is that politicians across all parties need to be very careful in what they say, and I hold Sarah to that same standard.
I do feel the situation is wrong on the subject of George Osborne and his comments. If welfare benefits were the cause of those child deaths, this would be more frequent than at present.
The bedroom tax, I simply do not understand why other measures were not tried in the past and in the present. Firstly, to see if there was a way housing could be freed up for others in more need. House building in the social sector. Even consider the cost of housing, there has to be a way to make housing more affordable, rather than this path.
Of course, there is always a need to economize in public spending,, but just stopping the flow, that hardly seems the answer. Well done Sarah, we simply can’t stop feeding others because they do not belong within the system, the reasons why there is problems with our borders is one question. The other is to remedy the problems, and understand the need to be vigilant.
I feel this is almost encouraging a dislike of others, most unhealthy.