The true reason for deficit cutting.

Cogito-

Why else would Balls and Miliband be making announcements this week that they would also reform the welfare state if/when they are back in power? Their grass roots supporters want them to represent workers... not welfare.

and

Ketchup-

Didn't Ed Miliband announce the other day that if Labour get into power next they will not be reversing any of the cuts, and indeed will be continuing with an austerity programme?

The answer is two-fold

1. Pure political pragramatism: The Tory scum and right-wing press have so far successfully propagated myths about welfare and welfare claimaints. Rather than challenge these myths, they calculate it would be easier to campaign on the commonly-accepted narrative.

2. Labour is no longer a party which represents workers in any case. It is neo-liberal party, and as such, can ultimately be expected to defend the interests of the ruling class.

I've posted many times the report that shows the majority of the public is misinformed about how much is spent on welfare, in what departments, and the level of fraud.

=============================

New research commissioned by the TUC shows support for government welfare cuts is based on ignorance and misinformation.

A recent poll shows many people?s assumptions about welfare spending are wildly inaccurate, that those who are most likely to be wrong about the realities of welfare are most likely to support government cuts, but that ? when provided with accurate information ? people shift from supporting government plans to opposing them.

For example, on average people think 27% of the welfare budget is wasted on fraud. In fact, by the government?s own figures, fraud accounts for only 0.7%.

wwinn.org.uk/news/support-for-welfare-cuts-based-on-myths-and-misinformation/

Voters 'brainwashed by Tory welfare myths', shows new poll

Survey shows public ignorance of the level of benefits and who gets them

Ministers were accused of demonising benefits claimants in an attempt to justify their controversial decision to increase most state handouts by less than inflation.

Polling commissioned by the Trades Union Congress suggests that a campaign by Tory ministers is turning voters against claimants ? but only because the public is being fed "myths" about those who rely on benefits.

The criticism comes before a crunch Commons vote next Tuesday on the Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill, which will ensure that most benefits and tax credits will rise by only one per cent for the next three years. Labour, which will vote against the measure, tried today to answer Tory claims that it is "soft" on scroungers by announcing a "tough love" plan to force adults who have been out of work for more than two years to take up a government "job guarantee" or lose their benefits.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-brainwashed-by-tory-welfare-myths-shows-new-poll-8437872.html

Didn't Ed Miliband announce the other day that if Labour get into power next they will not be reversing any of the cuts, and indeed will be continuing with an austerity programme?

That means what Cogito said is correct.

I think it's delusional to believe it's 'the right' that exclusively wants to see a scaling back of welfare. It's not even those in comfy homes or the right wing press. Traditional Labour party supporters, who can't be tarred with the middle England 'sheep' label, are very angry. People like Brown's Nemesis Mrs Duffy, know (because they live in the real world and are not at all romantic about poverty) that effort is not necessarily rewarded, those who need help are often unable to get it and far too many are taking the piss. Why else would Balls and Miliband be making announcements this week that they would also reform the welfare state if/when they are back in power? Their grass roots supporters want them to represent workers... not welfare.

wannabe makes good points in her post. The knock on effect these cuts will have will cost even more money than the money the government will save, not to mention the affect on retail and business as those people will not be able to afford essentials, which of course brings money to shops and businesses.

The effect on social care, and the wellbeing of youngsters will do untold damage.

The state wastes more money when families are driven to such lengths that social services then come in and kids go into care. Because their disabled mother could look after them with support, but that support is withdrawn.

So instead of paying for the original support, now the government is paying social workers and foster carers. Its not saving anything.

Same with benefits. Leave a family to scrape by and the first thing to get cut is the food budget. You might save a few hundred pounds on the benefits per year, but then what are you spending through the NHS when poor diets lead to health problems etc.

But the difficulty is that one section of society (the ones in employment paying tax) believe they are unfairly funding another section of society (who are the benefit claimants). Of course one day you could be in one section, the next in the other when I suspect the attitude would change accordingly.

Personally I'm not bothered who rally's to which political flag, I just would like to see the state not waste money.

I totally agree with your post OP.

The acid test really is this. How many 'successful' states pursue left wing policies? I can't think of any you need to study history 1945-2013 to figure that out! why not, I challenge you to read up about American foreign policy over that time frame. You will then know the answer to your question

Human nature.........we are so far removed from our nature that we don't have any concept of what it was or likely to be at any time in the future.

What sets man apart from Animals is that man shapes nature is using it to create the things he needs. Bees need pollen but do not take up nature in order to maximise pollen production! at least no in any conscious way.

In shaping nature, we shape our own nature.

Some might argue that having a welfare state is civilised, whilst others put forward the view that helplessness strips people of their human dignity. I would agree with those on the right in this respect. Capitalism hasn't always existed but it is only under capitalism that unmet human need drives the formation of welfare.

If our ancestors were to look upon what is happening in the world now, they might conclude that allowing children to die of starvation and evicting their parents from the land to make way for capital accumulation is barbaric in a world where we have the capacity to feed everyone.

Why shouldn't we dismantle the welfare state? It'd make things interesting around here for one when the idle have to get off their fat arses and start working.

Oh look, IDS has come for a browse on MN.

As I've said before, communism & socialism are fine on paper. In reality they are crap because they go against human nature yet rely upon humans to make it work.

Capitalism isn't great but it's better than the above and works better in reality than any other system we've found to date.

The acid test really is this. How many 'successful' states pursue left wing policies? I can't think of any.

New Labour only won power again after Blair dragged them to the right. And due to the rise of UKIP we can see that the nation has stepped to the right, leaving very few (but vocal) people bleating on about what we should be doing (in their opinion)

North Korea.............just tell me how many military bases uncle Sam has spread all over the globe? and explain why we have a global economic system of exchange, where we take to the market jumpers for coffee, or wool for wheat? Might North Korea be starving because of trade sanctions?

yawn.

No communism does not create factitious jobs. All work has social value, caring, education, nursing, child care, even housework. Capitalism obscures the social nature of labour through market mechanisms.

Banks create factitious capital that is not backed with any other commodities. This money actually has no value therefore save social power that people have over others.

What happens in the interim between capitalism and (real) communism has been in the past large state dominance of economics. The reasons for this are too complex to get into here.

Capitalism creates unemployment.

Yes, but only because socialism/communism creates fictious jobs which cannot otherwise be reasonably supported by the economy. And at some point these collapse under their own weight.

Look at socialist Britain in the 70's and look at how well China, USSR did following ultra left wing policies. Not to mention the stunning success of North Korea. I mean everyone there has a job. That must mean noone is starving right?

But payrises get taxed so in actual fact are good for tax revenues.

As for bankers, it's a tired & worn topic. If you look at the banks we actually had to bail out, none of them were actually as a result of the casino style investment schemes.

Northern Rock, B&B and HBOS all got into trouble because they lent too much money to too many business & homeowners and didn't have enough saver deposits to cover. Mortgages are long term loans, repayments are over decades.

RBS failed because they paid a ridiculous amount for ABN Amro.

Basic poor management rather than reckless gambling on the stock exchange. Those with large investment arms like Barclays (narrowly) avoided having to get a bailout.

The left has this crazy idealogical idea that the state must provide employment and/or benefits for all. Idealogy gone mad

P........lease.

Why do we have so much unemployment?

If you understand anything about economics understand this: The worker is free to contract with an employer to sell his labour. This process concentrates capital in the hands of the employer whilst only allowing the workers enough (or under neo-liberalism not enough) to reproduce that labour tomorrow. Workers lack the capital to create their own work under this system where monopoly banks ONLY lend to large businesses. Capitalism creates unemployment.

It creates unemployment through two main mechanisms. The first is material/economic the other is in the fact that the economic reality leads to a sort of cultural paralysis where the working class/wage slaves/unemployed become totally reliant upon wages or benefits.

I am way to the left of labour, closer to where left wing thinking originates!! and I am not in favour of creating/perpetuating welfare dependency. I can tell you who is though?

I agree with you niceguy.

It just seems really off that millions are being paid out to bankers who work for banks that are making a loss, yet joe bloggs down the road is being demonised for relying on £71 a week to live on.

I am not against the cuts for the sake of it. I understand that the pot is running dry. What I am against is the cuts on the disabled and the vulnerable against a backdrop of pay rises for company directors and bonuses for reckless bankers.

The poison and lies that this government have spread has to stop.

The poor are 'suffering badly' because the money isn't there anymore to spend on them. For the last two decades the money spent hasn't come from tax revenues but instead from borrowed money.

If we want to improve the welfare state then the way to do it is to stimulate the economy. Get more people in work, get more tax revenues that way and spend less on stupid government projects.

We cannot and should not continue to fund our welfare state from borrowed money.

And in answer to the ops question, the real reason for the cuts is a Class divide-Pure and simple.
The conservatives have always aired onside with the mega rich and always been at war with the poor.

It's all very well say "we spent too much money", but that isn't an excuse to throw people out on the streets and starve them is it?!