Labours Tough Decisions and the Blame Game
Labor has been attributing many of their tough policy decisions, such as introducing means-testing for the winter fuel allowance, to the actions of the previous government. One reader shares her story of why she refuses to claim her pension credit.
A Glimpse Back at the 1930s Depression
While the worst of the Great Depression occurred in the early 1930s, older industrial areas in Britain were hit hard throughout the interwar period. After World War I, returning soldiers faced growing unemployment, which escalated throughout the 1920s, eventually becoming a major social and political issue. From the late 1920s through the mid-1930s, unemployment and economic hardship cast a long shadow over the nation. While some segments of the working class experienced rising affluence, many more lived with the grim realities of poverty and unemployment.
When the National Government came into power in the fall of 1931, its primary focus was on reducing the £120 million budget deficit. Public opinion largely supported these cuts, with media reports of “dole abuse” further swaying sentiment. National and regional newspapers painted a picture where budget cuts were not only necessary but would prevent the so-called “workshy” from misusing taxpayers’ money. By May 1931, over 400,000 people were receiving transitional payments, one of the biggest burdens on government spending.
Why I Refuse to Claim Pension Credit
Whether or not I qualify for pension credit, I will never apply for it unless I’m on the brink of poverty. Not because I see it as charity—I’ve paid my taxes—but because of the painful memories of my grandmother’s experience with the notorious means test in the 1930s. Abandoned by her husband, she raised four daughters on her own. The youngest slept on two kitchen chairs tied together, as they couldn’t afford a bed.
That same daughter remembered her whole life the humiliation of a well-dressed woman in a leopard-skin coat, who told her mother to sell their “too-good-for-the-poor” furniture before receiving any government assistance. They didn’t sell the furniture—the neighbors hid it when the means-test officials came. My family only escaped poverty due to the hard work and determination of my mother and her sisters, not because of any help from the state. Will I claim benefits from the same system that insulted my grandmother? Never. She was worth far more than any of the pompous assessors or bureaucrats who judge others simply for being poor.
Checks and Balances in Government
How do individuals like this get into positions of power? Do we not vet these people thoroughly before allowing them to lead? Shouldn’t leaders set an example and work to improve the lives of the citizens they serve? It’s time we introduce rules and standards for those in government positions—this has been neglected for far too long. We need real change, not a repeat of the same issues.
A First-World Problem: Homelessness
In a wealthy country like ours, homelessness should not exist. We’re a global leader in wealth creation and capitalism, with the sixth-largest economy in the world. If we can’t solve homelessness, what is the point of having such an economic system?
Pension Poverty and Government Missteps
Recent pieces in Bird’s Words have been thought-provoking, a stark contrast to the simplistic thinking of today’s political leadership. The Tory government introduced winter fuel payments for all pensioners, regardless of wealth, while public services like schools and hospitals struggled. Now, Labour has eliminated these payments, even for those who truly need them.
Most people already have tax codes—why can’t caring politicians devise systems that provide help without requiring individuals to jump through hoops? Do Labour and Tory leaders really understand the world their constituents live in? And when will we address the root causes of desperate people attempting dangerous journeys to our shores, fleeing poorly regulated and exploitative employers?
The Broken Asylum System
Sixteen years is a shocking amount of time for someone to wait for an asylum decision. Objectively, these cases should take no more than six months. Most of the evidence comes with the person—no one expects a confession from a torturer in Syria. An efficient system could make a decision in one month, with an appeal in another six.
How can former Home Secretaries and immigration ministers sleep at night knowing this has been allowed to happen? This backlog will take many months to clear, and in the meantime, people suffer.