Most interesting George

A host of psychological experiments demonstrate that it doesn\’t work like this. Instead of performing a rational cost-benefit analysis, we accept information that confirms our identity and values, and reject information that conflicts with them. We mould our thinking around our social identity, protecting it from serious challenge. Confronting people with inconvenient facts is likely only to harden their resistance to change.

I wonder if we can find an example of this? Ah, yes, here it is, in your first paragraph:

So here we are, forming an orderly queue at the slaughterhouse gate. The punishment of the poor for the errors of the rich, the abandonment of universalism, the dismantling of the shelter the state provides: apart from a few small protests, none of this has yet brought us out fighting.

It would seem to be an inconvenient fact with which we should confront you that this dismantling of all that is holy and pure in the British Welfare State is actually an attempt to take it all the way back to 2006 in size.

Horrors, eh?

2 thoughts on “Most interesting George”

  1. This is absolutely the new agenda for new old labour; the cuts are because of the rich bankers, not because of the massive economic ineptitude of the last 13 years. And the level of welfare and governmnet is currently optimal; and no cuts are feasible. Everytime Dave panders to the class warriors he plays right into Red Ed’s hands. The lefties are once again settingthe agenda and the government are proving as gullible as they were in opposition.

  2. Changing to 2006 size, yes, but a different shape. In 2006 child benefit was universal.
    I am pro universal benefits because of the damage done by the high marginal withdrawal rates of meansctested benefits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *