There ought to be a thoughtful welfare-reform debate that doesn't turn into something that could be called scapegoating.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The issue I highlight in the book is welfare reform.
What we want to do is reform the welfare system in the way that Tony Blair talked about 13 years ago but never achieved - a system that was created for the days after the Second World War. That prize is now I think achievable.
What we're putting forward is the most radical reform of the welfare state... for 60 years. I think it will have a transformative effect in making sure that everyone is better off in work and better off working rather than on benefits.
But we will say something else. That for far too long in this country, people who can work, people who are able to work, and people who choose not to work: you cannot go on claiming welfare like you are now.
The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs.
It will be hard to convince people that their welfare is safe in the hands of a federal government when they feel themselves the victims of unjust sectional discrimination.
The idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers - that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried.
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
The real purpose of welfare is to get rid of poor people entirely. Everybody knows welfare has bad effects; that's the point.