Redefining our language
I just want to have a very quick rant about the deliberate and cynical redefining of certain words in common usage, as I've been listening to the radio whilst working out in our field, and been feeling increasingly irritated by it.
Caring is one that we've been hearing a lot this week, because people who are paid to be 'carers' are apparently undergoing the same fate as single parents, with regard to being forced into the work for welfare scheme. Ironically, those carers probably do care very deeply about the people they're looking after, but I heard a succession of politicians talking about 'caring' as if it was a career choice, rather than an emotion. I've heard some dodgy excuses for this work to welfare scheme being extended across the range of people who are already working hard all day for their money, but "Carers are increasingly telling us they need a break from caring" (so we're going to make them seek full-time employment and pay someone else to do the 'caring') from Ivan Lewis, just about took the biscuit.
Work is another such word. "Single parents want to work," is a phrase I'm hearing a lot these days. Anyone who's ever been a single parent - or indeed a parent - will know that we do work all day long, every day, and quite often all night as well too. But in this Orwellian newspeak, 'work' doesn't mean work any more. It only means doing something for money. So you can be idling your days away behind a quiet desk or counter in paid employment doing the crossword, and that's classed as work. Anything you do outside paid employment isn't.
Last but not least, poverty. The government's measure of poverty encompasses everyone living on less than 60% of the national median income. If half the people live below the average income and half above it, this therefore means that a third of the population will always be living in 'poverty'!! So it doesn't matter what policies are enacted, including the work for welfare schemes, while the measure of poverty is a relative one, a proportion of us will always be in it. But 'poverty' surely means not having enough? I have written about this at length elsewhere, but it was a treat listening to Ivan Lewis (again) making convoluted explanations for why it's actually a good thing that more people are now living in 'poverty', because it means that more people made more money last year, which raised the overall average income level accordingly.
You can't have it both ways, dear government. 'Poverty' is either desirable or undesirable, it can't be both at once in the same radio interview, though I see that won't stop you trying to tell us it can.
Caring is one that we've been hearing a lot this week, because people who are paid to be 'carers' are apparently undergoing the same fate as single parents, with regard to being forced into the work for welfare scheme. Ironically, those carers probably do care very deeply about the people they're looking after, but I heard a succession of politicians talking about 'caring' as if it was a career choice, rather than an emotion. I've heard some dodgy excuses for this work to welfare scheme being extended across the range of people who are already working hard all day for their money, but "Carers are increasingly telling us they need a break from caring" (so we're going to make them seek full-time employment and pay someone else to do the 'caring') from Ivan Lewis, just about took the biscuit.
Work is another such word. "Single parents want to work," is a phrase I'm hearing a lot these days. Anyone who's ever been a single parent - or indeed a parent - will know that we do work all day long, every day, and quite often all night as well too. But in this Orwellian newspeak, 'work' doesn't mean work any more. It only means doing something for money. So you can be idling your days away behind a quiet desk or counter in paid employment doing the crossword, and that's classed as work. Anything you do outside paid employment isn't.
Last but not least, poverty. The government's measure of poverty encompasses everyone living on less than 60% of the national median income. If half the people live below the average income and half above it, this therefore means that a third of the population will always be living in 'poverty'!! So it doesn't matter what policies are enacted, including the work for welfare schemes, while the measure of poverty is a relative one, a proportion of us will always be in it. But 'poverty' surely means not having enough? I have written about this at length elsewhere, but it was a treat listening to Ivan Lewis (again) making convoluted explanations for why it's actually a good thing that more people are now living in 'poverty', because it means that more people made more money last year, which raised the overall average income level accordingly.
You can't have it both ways, dear government. 'Poverty' is either desirable or undesirable, it can't be both at once in the same radio interview, though I see that won't stop you trying to tell us it can.
posted by Gill at
7:46 AM
9 Comments
