Stumbling and Mumbling points out the wrongs of labelling people 'evil poor' and also the hypocrisy of right-wing rhetoric on incentives. Overstate the effects of a 50% tax rate and say nothing bad about the weak morality of those who avoid tax. Yet big up morality on the 'evil poor' on crime or welfare dependency when dismal education, poor parenting and poor job prospects offer them impossible odds out of their fate.
When the numbers on welfare rose from around 3m in the 70s to over 7m in the 80s under Thatcher, does that really mean we have 4m more 'lazy scum' than we had before, or is government policy to blame? Is it not obvious that lower welfare payments and poorer job prospects are bound to tempt more people into both violent crime (through frustration at their lot) and/or possessions crime.
The big question is (or should be) what is a more efficient and nicer society to live in? One with growing inequality and inevitable resentment, or one where society decides that there are reasonable limits on the gap between the haves and have-nots?