I don't think that's going to trouble the consciences of our politicians.
I wouldn't expect it to, frankly. Those cold fish are only ever troubled by things that direct affect
them, not us.
We've seen the completely cold response of the DWP to the suggestion that suicide rates amongst benefits claimants are high and rising - they have delivered minimalistic training to staff on how to deal with suicide threats on DWP premises, but have steadfastly refused to acknowledge any evidence to indicate that their reforms are responsible for suicides.
That's bureaucratic politics, rather than pure cuntishness. They will avoid acknowledging the welfare reforms as a cause beceause to do so would open the door to litigation. I've no doubt there's a circular memo of some sort that was sent around the various outposts of Dunked-in Shit's empire to that effect.
You only have to look at the way they're dealing with this latest Trussell Trust report about the usage of food banks to see how they'll manage it - first they'll rubbish the source, and attempt to suggest that they have some vested interest in reporting a higher incidence of suicide; then they'll dispute the figures anyway, then they'll attempt to suggest that it's some kind of self-serving strategy by the workshy oiks to get out of doing a Decent Day's Work.
Of course they will, it's standard tactics in politics - take credit for anything good, and blame anyone and everyone else for anything bad.
I think - I hope - they are only postponing the inevitable, and that the huge social consequences of their actions are simply being kicked down the road, but will eventually accumulate to the point where they can no longer be ignored, even by Cameron and his ilk. But how many will have died needlessly by then, or had the quality of their lives permanently impaired?
It's impossible to estimate, but we know there are currently about 700,000 more young people, for example, in worse straits than they were prior to 2010, due solely to politically-justified (as opposed to economically) cuts to programmes that had at least
some chance of helping those young people.
And they're just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
How many children are growing up in misery, watching the agonies of their parents as they struggle to provide for them, or - maybe worse - watching them give up and join the growing number of people who simply can't cope with the pressures of survival in such a world, and succumb to mental illness, substance abuse, or worse?
As happened back before "recreational" drugs became near-ubiquitous, I reckon we'll see an explosion (even compared to the current problem) of problem drinking, apart from anything else.
I wonder what kind of whirlwind we shall reap in a generation from what we are sowing today? There's already quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the "bump" in psychological dysfunction, and substance abuse amongst fortysomethings in certain groups today is a product of the "lost generation" caused by Thatcher's depredations - but what is being done today is even worse, and far more widespread: in 30 years' time from now, we could be seeing an pandemic of fucked-upness, as the kids of today hit their adult stride.
Forty-somethings and people in their early fifties now, saw the biggest percentage of heroin users in the population ever, during the '80s, and a massive explosion of substance experimentation in the late '80s. And yep, it was directly
and indirectly the fault of Thatcher and Thatcherism, although I can't really extrapolate what that's opened the door on, except perhaps a more open view on substance use by parents and young people that may or may not help fuel existential crises for a section of those affected.
