Stop the Benefits Scroungers

With the Westminster government intending to hammer benefits claimants on Monday I thought that this picture published on Twitter by @RCdeWinter  is quite pertinent, despite the fact that it relates to the USA (however Walmart is, of course, the parent company of ASDA on our side of the pond).

If companies pay so little to their employees that they have to depend on state handouts in order to have a basic standard of living then it is not those in receipt of benefits who are the cheats and scroungers so despised by The Daily Mail and its ilk, but the owners of these companies who abuse the benefits system as a means to boost their profits by underpaying their staff.

If the government really wanted to tackle the benefits bill for fiscal, rather than ideological, reasons then they would increase the minimum wage to a level where a working couple with an average amount of children wouldn't need to claim any state support.

Before the usual suspects accuse me of socialist ranting or bolstering the left, I would point out that I am a fiscal conservative, and this post makes a free market point. 

The welfare state should support those in greatest need, not one of the wealthiest families in the world and a company that relies on huge state subsidies in order to pay its workforce is not working in either the true private sector or in a free market economy. If paying a fair wage would make the company unprofitable (doubtful) then they should go bust - which would be a boon for the thousands of small companies that their abuse of state subsidies squeeze out of the market place!


  1. We have been here before....


    The outcome was undoubtedly to create a safety net for the poor but unscrupulous employers deliberately underpaid people knowing that the state (in the form of the parish) would pick up the tab. That is immoral. Interesting people on the right, like Boris Johnson, are calling for a living wage to be introduced - which would ensure that people don't need in work benefits.

  2. If the media had not brainwashed the masses with the view disabled and the poor and vulnerable bring it in themselves, and those that don't are lazy anyway, We would have a society that cares, now we have a society that that hates those worse off than themselves, and a government abandoning its own people to capitalise on cheap foreign labour. By keeping the minimum wage below the official subsistence level this has allowed the system to demonise those worse off in society, through no fault of their own. Its the politics of hatred, pitting neighbour against neighbour, just like Hitler did in fact.

  3. Not just Walmart with food stamps but Tesco with tax credits

  4. Thank you for telling us that, Alwyn.We'd heard that Asda treated its staff like cannon fodder.But,I anyway, didn't know how bad it was. A campaign over many years prevented Asda coming to Abergavenny. I couldn't make up my mind whether to support it or not but now I'm glad it's won.

    MM, I'm afraid you're right. I've only just received a paranoid and disablist email which is very depressing so I've no doubt that's a living force.But the able bodied poor are also being targeted. There aren't enough jobs to go around so there is no point in punishing people for not having them. Deep down, I don't really feel that this government is literally going to be as bad as Hitler, but it's not totaly impossible. If it could happen in Germany, it could happen here.

    I never wanted Cameron to be prime minister but I never thought he'd be this bad. This govrnment is punishing people for things they can't possibly help. As of tomorrow, a lot of us will be much worse off. We can only look forward with gloom. I envy the Scots who can opt out altogether if they go independent. But do we wnt that to happen yet? It will rob us of anti-government votes at the net genral election.

    Marianne Hancock

  5. You are 100% correct in the points raised. The UK along with Portugal,Singapore and the USA are the four most unequal Countries in the Industrialised world in terms of wealth inequality. In terms of regional inequality the only Country with a more appaling record than the UK is Mexico!
    The situation is without doubt going to deteriorate as this moribund government continue with their dismantling of the welfare state and their desire to make the rich even richer on the backs of the poor. I too envy Scotland and sincerely hope they vote to free themselves from an increasingly morally bankrupt "Little Britain" empire. The more I see of the moral disintegration of what the UK stands for the more I strugle to think of any reason why the Scots,Cornish Welsh or Northern Irish could possibly vote for the continuation of the rump of a corrupt empire that the UK has become.

  6. The concerted attack on Britain's worse off, is an clear abuse of Human Rights. Its an clear mystery to me why there isn't an case for impeaching the coalition in the Hague over this, we also need to come down heavily on media's which have preached hate, much of what we read, violated disability hate crime law, yet, no cases have been bought, go figure, maybe the fact they ensured financial support to mount an legal action has been withdrawn, has a lot to do with it. That leaves the poor unable to fight for their rights. We find even charities are toeing the hate line by refusing to take their main contractors to task. On;y one charity the NDCS used funds to mount (And win), an case against local authorities and the state diktat of closures and support withdrawal. For those worried about benefits, only 16% of appeals fail, the key is to keep up the appeals,and make the system where automatic withdrawal is the norm, financially inoperable.

  7. You're right. The appeals process is the obvious way to go. But if it can be shown to be legally a breach of the Human Rights Act, we'd better bring a class act quickly before David Cameron abolishes it.


  8. Who is going to bring a case to the Human Rights in Europe ? when the UK government wants to opt out anyway ? Mainly the issue is because greedy HR lawyers make a killing on backing the wrong people, like Hook ! Even Wales backed an Al Queda member here... Let's face it we back ANYONE but our own people. Maybe we should be deporting HR lawyers..... I gather you can make a case on your own and don't need them anyway.

  9. Well, I don't have the answers. I'm not sure there are any other than relying on individual appeals as above said.You'd have to be talented to bring a casse successfully yourself.



  10. Strasbourg complaints system
    Until 1998, the Strasbourg complaints system had two tiers: applications were lodged with the European Commission for Human Rights, which then made an initial review of the application, no matter whether it was lodged by an individual, an association or maybe a Member State. It was and remains a condition that the applicant had exhausted all possibilities in the national complaints system, that is, had approached all judicial instances in his or her country of origin, before the application would be processed by the Commission and perhaps ultimately be brought before the European Court of Human Rights.

    The first important ‘goal post’ to be passed is the decision whether the application is found admissible on its merits. A very large number of applications are declared inadmissible because they do not observe various formal conditions for being considered in Strasbourg. Once it has been declared admissible by a committee of three judges, an attempt is always made to reach a settlement between the applicant and the relevant Member State.

    The Commission assisted in this previously, and the Court does so today. In a typical settlement, the Member State will make an ex gratia payment, that is, a payment that does not imply that the Member State has acknowledged a breach of the Convention, but a payment to serve as a consolation. If this fails, most applications pass on to a chamber of seven judges. A few applications go all the way to the Grand Chamber consisting of 17 judges for final determination.
    Court workload

    The number of applications has risen considerably over the years. Until the mid-1990s, there were only about 25 Member States, but since 2007 the Council of Europe has had 47 Member States – only Belarus is not a member. However, awareness of the complaints system in Strasbourg has also grown in Western Europe. Since 2005, the number of judgments passed by the European Court of Human Rights has been around 1,500 each year. However, by 1 January 2008, the annual number of pending applications exceeded 100,000. In quite a number of judgments, the Court has applied a so-called ‘dynamic interpretation’, meaning that the individual rules of the European Convention on Human Rights are applied in light of current social developments.

    Several adjustments of the work procedures of the Court have proved unable to cope with the growing number of applications. A radical change in the conditions for admissibility of applications to the Court requires the adoption of an additional protocol ratified by all Member States. An appeal to the Member States to set up national complaints bodies for certain types of human rights violations has slightly eased the Court’s burden. Since the entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953, more than ten additional protocols have been adopted, either adding new rights or changing the structure of the complaints system.