Portillo gets his knickers in a twist...

Charles Murray is classified as a Sociologist, but is despised by many who do Sociology because of his racist, untrue, and unsupported claims about the 'underclass' and welfare. It did not surprise me to read Michael Portillo citing Murray as a heroic theorist who helps point to the problems around our welfare system. Murray's views are very contraversial, as for example, in his book the Bell Curve, he links IQ to genetics, arguing that IQ is the best predictor for a person's social conditions, such as their social class and education and claims that black people are genetically 'thicker' so are more prone to suffer from worse social conditions. To even being highlighting the flaws with this analogy would take a long time, so for now, I will just draw attention to the books racist and fascist funding from the eugenic promoting Pioneer Fund.

Portillo once again draws on those contraversial and massaged figures, which Theresa May used and Polly Tonybee rightly pulled her up on in her article yesterday. Portillo's claims that Beveridge with his five social evils, would advocate a world that Portillo would like, so one where benefits would be only accessible for those in absolute poverty, so one not based on a moral basis to help the disadvantaged. If Beverdige had wanted a world like that, he never would have advocated the solutions he did. Sickeningly, Portillo even seems to be supporting the workhouse conditions as a way to deter people from not working. Does he even consider those with disabilities? Illnesses? No, he doesn't.

To say living on benefits for most people is a 'lifestyle choice' is utterly offensive and misguided. Yes, there are the odd few who do live on benefits out of choice. Yes, there are the few cases such as Karen Matthews. But no, this is not a reprensetaive cross section of those who are on benefits. And how about white colour crime, hey? He talks about the loss of stigmatisation around benefits for lower income families, families who actually need money to survive, but what about those multi millionaires ripping off the shareholderes, or making banks nearly crash and pocket a massive pension in return, not mentioning any names Fred Goodwin. There has never been a stigmatisation around white colour crime, and the fact he is writing an article about benefit fraud shows how the stigmatisation around benefit living has not gone. He claims that the cost of living on benefits has not been talked about until recently. Are you serious? These debates have been going on for years. Was he actually a real part of the Thatcher government? Also, what about middle class benefits? Those benefits that help with home payments, for example? He doesn't complain about them, does he?

He talks about benefits not being morally affordable. What he is calling for are for those on benefits to be stigmatised again, even though there is a relativity small number of people who actually want to be on benefits. His admiration for Murray is shown again, as he talks about the flawed concept of the 'underclass', who he seems to think are roaming our streets pursing violence and drugs. Is he really a serious politician? Well, saying that he is a Tory. But honestly, this is just ridiculous. It is just another attempt of Tory waffle, that is attempted to promote their theme of a 'broken society', whilst they pimp it up in their expensive homes with their expensive lifestyles. The majority of them have not had a days hardship. How can he claim the stigmatisation around benefits has gone if he has not actually had to sign on and claim them? A snobby claim, if I do say so myself.

His remarks of the deserving and undeserving poor link to another known right wing nut case, that of Herbert Spencer. I wrote about his ideas yesterday in reference to the abolition of tax credits, May talked about. In specific reference to deserving and undeserving poor, Spencer said that those who are deserving poor such as the elderly and sick, deserved to have benefits, whilst the undeserving did not as they did not work. This again shows Tories to be closely affiliated with traditional right wing eccentric views, that would fail to fit into our increasingly diverse society.

It is surprising that Portillo is supporting Murray, when Murray himself is homophobic, with his strong support of traditional marriage and families. However, in this, he is also a hypocrite, after Murray has been divorced himself. To see Portillo state his support for Murray so avidly as he has today, is quite worrying. This strikes me as something that runs through the Tory party, and a theme that would destroy this country if and most likely when the Conservatives come to power.