Part of the problem so vividly highlighted by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett (The real shame of the welfare state, 10 August) lies in the language where we speak of welfare and benefits rather than social insurance or social security. Even those who don’t earn enough to pay income tax pay VAT on their purchases and contribute to what they receive. The debate about social policy is devalued by mythology exploited by the rightwing media and the politicians they support. It’s time we supplemented opinion polls with knowledge polls, making clear the gap between what is all too widely believed and what is factual. By doing so we would, hopefully, help a better-informed electorate make political choices grounded in reality rather than myth.
Jeremy Beecham
Labour, House of Lords
• Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett makes an important point about the stereotyping of benefit claimants which serves to justify a harsh welfare and benefit regime. But an analysis of the recent history of the development of welfare reforms shows that the current model, including benefit sanctions and the much contested work capability assessment, was developed by previous Labour governments accompanied by narratives of “benefit dependency” and claimants being “work shy”. So Rachel Reeves’ comments on Labour being tough on benefits may reflect the thinking of some of the parliamentary party but not it seems the majority of the membership. Cosslett uses the term “mired in infighting” which is not really helpful to explain what is surely a radical break by Corbyn et al from the type of thinking by those who voted for or abstained on the government’s welfare reforms.
Dr David Etherington
Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research, Middlesex University
• Yes, as a benefit recipient of government largesse increasing by higher than the rate of inflation or average earnings, I do feel ashamed – and angry. I am, of course, a pensioner beneficiary of the “triple lock”, but I fail to see why I should be favoured when all other welfare recipients have had their benefits variously frozen, reduced or taken away by new charges imposed on them such as the bedroom tax and having to pay council tax. This is grossly unfair and increases the divide between rich and poor with its consequent increased social stresses, added costs to the NHS and damage to the economy. What is especially galling is that it is unnecessary. Our austerity is self-inflicted by political choice to serve the mantra of deficit reduction, but the proceeds are actually partly used to fuel reductions in taxes on corporations and the wealthiest. Taxation is not “bad” – it is essential to provide the public services we all depend upon, including the companies who utilise our workforce – and it can as easily be increased as reduced. Perhaps foolishly I live in hope that Theresa May’s government will begin a change of direction. It is long overdue.
Michael Miller
Sheffield
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
