Writing for
The Observer Andrew Rawnsley describes the division between taxpayer support for public health and support for welfare, the two biggest items of government expenditure. His assessment would probably hold true in this country:
"... the public has developed very different attitudes
towards these legacies of the postwar Labour government. The core
principle of the NHS – that health care should be provided to all
regardless of the ability to pay or how you have conducted your life –
continues to enjoy enormous support. Few regard the health service as
perfect, but it is better regarded by the public than most other
national institutions. People still believe it is worth spending
taxpayers' money on the NHS, which is why David Cameron gave its budget
some protection from the squeeze imposed in other areas.
That sort
of approval no longer exists for the benefits system. There is instead
hostility to the idea that welfare should be an unconditional safety
net. The public still has quite generous attitudes to specific groups
that are seen as vulnerable, especially children, the old and the
disabled. But there is a very wide and entrenched view that the benefits
system is directing too much money to the wrong people. This is
illustrated by some recent polling by YouGov for Prospect. It
found that 74% of voters think that Britain shells out too much on
welfare and should cut the amount spent on benefits. Only 17% disagreed."
2 comments:
at health care should be provided to all regardless of the ability to pay or how you have conducted your life – continues to enjoy enormous support
GIven the investment of hardworking Kiwis on private health insurance and private education - not to mention high-value, high-worth individuals and families - whatever the situation in the UK it is pretty clear health & education spending is hated as much as welfare spending in NZ
The solution - which, funnily enough, will also stop that billion we're borrowing every week - is pretty simple: stop spending on welfare, health and education
I'm sure that a survey here would give similar results.
People have had a **gutsful** of shelling out vast amounts of tax money to people who just can't be bothered working.
Just in the last day or two, I've seen accounts of people who show up to a kiwifruit packhouse, stuff around for 2-3 days, and deliberately do a lousy job so they can be fired and then go back onto the benefit.
I am sure that this is not an uncommon occurrence.
If life on a benefit is as hard as Sue Bradford portrays it, then why would these people deliberately choose it?
Post a Comment