Scroungers and the poor are not the same

The intervention of Lord Carey into the increasingly embittered welfare debate

illustrates perfectly the dangers of confusing two aspects of this complex and urgent issue.

The historically two-tone nature of British politics divides opinion here into those whose priority is to defend the weakest, and those who seek to punish citizens who abuse the welfare system.

Abuse there certainly is, with a very small number of people exercising considerable experise to milk the system for all its worth.

A few would argue that these individuals and families should be able to do so.

However, the vast majority of those on benefits are not there by choice and, for anyone who has experienced it, it’s neither comfortable nor desirable; in fact it represents a life of dependency, hopelessness and poverty.

Being on welfare in the first place is the fault of government, as it results from poorly-managed employment and healthcare policies.

Thus, getting people off benefits and into useful work (as opposed to useless employment) is about creating real jobs with meaningful salaries.

Unfortunately most past attempts have merely resulted in the creation of marginally beneficial, or even negative, salaries, and job roles that all too often lead to further yet exploitation and short-term benefits.

This is the first problem, and most critical, challenge that government needs to address, and it also needs to understand that secure, decent, long-term employment opportunities are the only way to downsize the benefits Bill.

At the other extreme, it’s vital not to see the problem of spongers and exploiters as part of the benefits system, but rather, as a separate issue that needs tackling well apart from welfare reforms.

So, as long as commentators on all sides of the debate confuse these two issues, we’ll be running round forever in useless political circles trying to decide whether we’re a nation in poverty, or a nation of scroungers.