I can't stand it any more.

There's a lot to be said about the ConDem Coalition and their latest Spending Review but I've been holding my tongue. I'm largely too overwhelmed by the scale and the savagery of the spending cuts for detailed analysis. But there is something I just have to put out there because I am sick to death of not hearing anyone counter one particular argument about welfare reform.

Today Conservative Home posted "twenty reasons why the Coalition is compassionate". Number one on that list is this:

1. BENEFITS REFORM: Reform of the benefits system so that people are always better off when they take work than when they are on benefits.

Throughout the comments on articles in The Guardian, The Independent and the Telegraph this nonsense is repeated over and over again by ConDem supporters. Of all the things that has been said by Gideon & Co, this is by far the most insidious and revolting spin on "compassion" I have ever read.

Here's the deal: reforming the benefit system so that "people are always better off when they work than when they are on benefits" means millions of people accepting extremely low paid work. That's the reality of that statement. It means staving people into accepting exploitation by companies forced to pay a minimum wage, but not a living one. It means starving people into working 80-120 hours/week, performing back breaking, unskilled, monotonous tasks, and still living their lives in debt. It means starving people into living in over-crowded situations, sharing rooms and homes with strangers. This is not "compassion". This is not "fair".

People don't remain on the dole because it "pays not to work". They remain on the dole because they cannot afford to accept low paid work and pay their bills. For many, taking that job in a sandwich shop for 35 hours/week at minimum wage means having to take another part-time job to pay for that job. Fine and dandy if you're single but absolutely no good if you have any dependants whatsoever. (And by "dependants" I don't just mean children, I mean relatives who are dependent on all kinds of undocumented, unrecognised social care support systems).   Trapping people into dignity draining, emotionally debilitating lifestyles by gouging the welfare state is not compassionate, it's barbaric.

The other idea I must contradict is the one that suggests that the the richest 2% will be  "hit hardest" by the spending review because they are contributing the most money. These people will still be able to feed and clothe themselves and their children and do so in the manner in which they have long been accustomed. They will lose some money, but very little else. Their dignity, their sense of self and belonging will remain intact while those forced into becoming under-employed and over exploited will find themselves increasingly alienated from the rest of society.