Cuts: A necessity or an endorsement of ideology?

Original Source - Telegraph (Adams Cartoonist)

For those that have already read my post on 'Should the unemployed be forced to clean our streets?' would know that I am not a big fan of the cost saving tactics or cuts that have been pursued by the recent 'coalition' government. I say coalition loosely because it is evident what party is clearly dominant, so clear that I needn't say. However, what I challenge are not the cuts themselves but the reasons for these cuts, as I think we are simply being led into believing one thing to agree with something that radically goes against our interests.

So the reason for these cuts that I am sure you have had drilled into your mind that these are for the 'good of the country.' Merely use of propaganda and use of non-relevant jargon to make you believe so. I am sure you've heard of things like 'The Debt Crisis', 'The country is broke!' and 'We need to make ourselves competitive.' So to sum up the reason that has been drilled into our heads are that the cuts are to ensure we can pay back the debt that we owe and secure a low interest rate on doing so. However, is this really the reason for doing so or is this just convenient for the Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative ideology that was shaken by a slight change in consensus? (Apologies for the technicalities.)

Our political neutrality is being manipulated by irrational reasoning, we are simply given statistics of large negative numbers and suddenly we go into panic, lose our heads and begin to agree to cut left right and centre as if we were puppets on a string. So why do I say that having this 'Debt Crisis' is actually beneficial for the current government? Well I have already argued this has led to us being controlled like puppets on a string, and cuts in government expenditure on things such as the welfare state is highly favoured policy of the ideology that drives the current government. If for instance we were serious about the debt crisis we should spend out of recession and cut in booms, cut all factors of government expenditure and raise the taxes for the very wealthy.
But this is not the case because this does not fit with their ideology. Rather they would appear to be making significant 'savings' when in fact they are targeting cuts to dismantle the foundations of the welfare state. I am sure that if in the long run these cuts would make very little if not no contribution to national saving (by significantly reducing income) then in hindsight this government would still go ahead, because they are motivated by ideology, not necessity.

'The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - That's what I believe only because I'm rich'

Outright Elitism

The statement that simply "some people just aren't intelligent enough to be successful" by Boris Johnson is clear evidence of their distance from reality and their over fuelled egos. I firmly reject such comments as those such as Boris Johnson would clearly not have a hope in hell in succeeding if his circumstances were somewhat different as a child. This distinction of top cornflakes and bottom cornflakes shows his lack of sense of the real world and exposes the idiocy in himself as opposed to the people he is trying to attack.

This is completely the opposite of the very theme of meritocracy, you work hard and you get the best rewards, but rather outright elitism. His pitiful distinction of cornflakes is merely an attempt to secure and protect the power of elites, the silver spoon is definitely at hand here.

I shall end this here before it becomes too much of a rant.

Boris Johnson, you clearly haven't had to work hard to get where you are top cornflake.

Should the unemployed be forced to clean our streets? A rubbish idea.

This is reference to the UK conservative party proposition to make the unemployed in the UK clean up the streets in return for their benefits.

'They are a burden on society, A waste of our taxes and they fuel a something for nothing society'  is what I normally hear when this topic usually arises. However, I believe in a society that is predominately influenced by the more affluent in the country that this view is actually distorted from the reality. I admit that a minority of the population are 'benefit scroungers' and will never be shaken off from society unless we completely dismantle the foundations of the welfare state, which implies more cost than benefit. Although, while the minority are what we name 'benefit scroungers' the majority are those which are not and I will explain why such people should not undergo what I feel is slave labour of the current government.

Firstly, I would like to state that some unemployment is not necessarily bad. Although this may seem surprising at first, a society without unemployment is one that is static and immobile. The reason for this is that unemployment can simply be a transition period for many people between one job and another or one career and another. Let me provide an example to show this, take for instance a working family which one of the adults has got a higher paid job in another city. Now the other adult(s), assuming they want to move, are deemed unemployed until they get a job in that city. Are these people scroungers? Clearly not, they are an example of labour mobility and without such cases the economy would be like I said, static and immobile. The aim should be to reduce employment by promoting work and helping people to help themselves, not to achieve full employment to make the statistics look good.

Furthermore, I would like to say that any policy that targets the unemployed to undergo voluntary full-time work in order to receive benefits would limit people in society. Getting people back into work is not a one-size fits all policy as people have different skills, specialities and interests. Therefore, we should help build upon this through skilled based learning rather than funnelling everyone into one role, one job. Those that are unemployed and seeking work need time to find and get a job and making these people work full-time will limit their motivation to do so, thus limiting their motivations in life.

Finally, 'the unemployed should be forced to clean the streets for their benefits' is a statement that is clearly degrading. For the unemployed? No, for those who work day in and day out to help keep our streets clean, empty our bins and provide a nice environment for all whilst also doing a job that many people may reject. So to say that the unemployed should do this job as a punishment for not having a job already is simply degrading to those who already work cleaning our streets putting them on the same scale as the 'benefit scroungers.'