International Marxist Group Archive

Magazines, bulletins and booklets of the IMG and its forerunners, 1961–1984

Abolition of Poverty Through Increased Welfare Payments

The Week Vol. 8, No. 24, 13 December 1967 · p. 12 of the scan · 207 words

The scan: The Week v8 no24.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Tesseract OCR) from a scan of a stencilled typescript and has not been corrected. Expect misread words; titles in particular are often garbled where the issue printed no contents list. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: capitals heading; heuristic; title from the OCR of the heading.

One of the arguments advanced for the Government's incomes policy is that it is designed to protect the lower income groups from being left behind because of the power of highly-organised workers. This is one of the Government's most hypocritical claims. Nearly everyone of the Wilson Government's policies has hit the lowest paid more than anyone else. Who can deny that the increase in the cost of living caused by devaluation will hit the old age pensioners and bw-wage groups most? Who can deny that the huge rent increases which are taking place all over the country, again directly because of Government policy, will hit the poorer sectiMms of the community more than anyone else? The Tory answer to this problem is, of course, to bring back the means test. But Wilson has no real answer either and may be forced to accept the Tory Plan. The Child Poverty A tion Group has worked out a series of policies which, if implemented, would tackle the problem of poverty. Trade unionists and Labour Party members should struggle for the implementation of this policy which would cost only a fraction of that spent on so-called defence. Again, there should be a sliding scale of benefits to meet rising prices.

← T:midiat# Al Olition of Th? (ace Frith and Anti-trade Union LegislationHuge Cuts In’ Military Expenditure →

Something wrong on this page?