Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Bleeding heart on steroids

Jeepers. Does this guy lay it on thick.

How can any society regard itself as moral when it allows a quarter or more of its children, with their families, to live in poverty, in cold, damp and overcrowded houses, with inadequate food, and suffering from illnesses such as asthma, rheumatic fever or TB?
Or turns a blind eye to children ashamed to go to school in worn-out clothing, without lunch or money for a class trip, or mothers forced to clean buildings in the middle of the night on rock-bottom wages?
How can we allow kids to have the best years of their lives ruined by the stain of poverty and the shame of social exclusion, with parents denied the natural joy and pride of being able to adequately provide for and enjoy some of the simple pleasures like a day at the beach?

Apparently the evils of indiviualism are to blame for this sorry state of affairs.

I was getting a bit worked up until I read some of the comments.

Here's my favourite from someone called Peter Archer:

The irony is that the poverty exists solely because of government welfare. As soon as welfare starting flowing from the trough, it took away the incentive to better one's self.

The more welfare there is, the more poverty there will be in the following generation.

But there are many more comments rejecting the ex-bishop's views.

Ironically Randerson's thesis is partially correct. It is individualism preventing a major swing his way. It's a recognition, not of individual rights, but individual responsibilities.

People's attitudes to welfare spending have changed. It hasn't delivered the socialist  utopia promised. If anything this column reinforces the failure of government mandated redistribution.


Anonymous said...

"or mothers forced to clean buildings in the middle of the night on rock-bottom wages?"
Is he claiming it is immoral to do a paying cleaning job? Or have I mis-read him?

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I think he would claim the immorality of low wages 'forces' her to clean in the middle of the night. But hasn't she 'forced' herself by assuming (extra) financial obligations eg children?

I applaud these mothers nevertheless. And their children will also appreciate (if not now, later) the work their mums do to provide for them.

Randerson would prefer them resentful and embittered against their employers and 'the system'.
That is what builds the political will he wants.

Manolo said...

Randerson has been preaching this manure for long, long time. He is a bleeding heart of the highest order.

JC said...

The big Western religions seem dead set on renouncing their political stances of even 50 years ago when they worked with their large congregations who fully covered just about all political and social groups there were to help the poor and alleviate suffering.

Now they just cover the ratbag largely political organisations with vested interests in exploiting poverty and social maladjustment.

Randerson and co are now simply part of a political grouping largely isolated from the general population.