What was the aim of Cameron's attack on welfare claimants, in the speech he made this Monday, at Kent's aptly-named "Bluewater" shopping centre?

Was he merely launching his party's campaign for the 2015 election and "previewing" the Tory manifesto, as some newspapers claimed?

Or was he trying to address much more immediate challenges, from his right in particular, whether from within his own party or from its growing rival, UKIP? After all, the ConDems' failure to stop the decline of the British economy and alleviate the impact of the crisis, except for the City and the very wealthy, is eroding the Tories' credit, even among its right-wing supporters.

And how else could Cameron woo this particular constituency, except by pandering to its anti-working class prejudices and using welfare claimants as scapegoats? Just as he's been pandering to the nationalist, xenophobic prejudices of this same constituency by blaming the "eurozone" for all of Britain's ills, for weeks on end!

In any case, Cameron's new attacks against welfare claimants are not innocuous. And they are part and parcel of the general attack by the capitalists and their politicians in government against the whole working class.

Workfare? they're already doing it!

Put in a nutshell, Cameron's half-an-hour speech said that every pound spent on welfare is, as a rule, one pound too much. That pound must be scrutinised and only given to "deserving" claimants. And, according to Cameron, there aren't many!

So, for instance, most under-25s should not be awarded housing benefits - they should stay at home with their parents, instead! Never mind that Britain has one of the worst overcrowding problems in Northern Europe and that things can only get a lot worse in the absence of new social housing.

For Cameron, all kinds of extra conditions should be imposed on welfare claims.

So, for instance, he complained that "if someone is signed off work with a bad back there's no requirement to take steps to get well to keep on receiving (sickness) benefit - even if they could be getting free physiotherapy." How idiotic can these politicians get? That's not even true, given the stringent "attendance procedures" in most workplaces! For these people, if someone with a bad back doesn't get him or herself treated, it must be because he or she chooses to be in pain! But then, of course, a toff like Cameron could never imagine that it may take weeks even to get a physio appointment.

Likewise for jobless claimants. Cameron mentioned Australia as an example, because there "work for the dole is standard after just six months". But this is increasingly what's already happening here with long-term unemployed, who get forced into zero-hour or even unpaid "job placements" as part of the ConDems' "Work Programme". Apparently, Cameron hasn't noticed. Where was he during the Queen's jubilee?

Who are the real scroungers?

The list of claimants targeted by Cameron includes just about every possible category in the welfare book - young and old, disabled and able-bodied, childless and parents, employed and unemployed. Yet, commenting on his speech, Work and Pension Secretary Duncan Smith insisted that there is no question of blaming claimants for claiming, but only of changing a system which, in its present form is open to "abuse", but should remain as a safety net. How hypocritical can they get?

A safety net? But a safety net against what - if not against the damage caused by the bosses' job slashing, the very low level of wages paid by so many companies, their use of part-time and casual work as a means to cut their wage bill? And more generally, against the damage caused by a society which is not organised to cater for the needs of the majority, but only for the greed of the few.

But in that case, why aren't companies and their shareholders made to pay for the safety net that their irresponsible profiteering makes necessary, instead of cutting the already very low standard of living of welfare claimants?

Cameron claims that the welfare bill amounts to "almost £1 in every £3 spent by the government". But this is an outright lie, since a large chunk of it pays for the state pension, which is not a "benefit"! Anyway we all pay "national insurance" while working, precisely to cover future needs. Ironically, just as Cameron was attacking welfare, yet more scandal surfaced about the way in which companies and wealthy individuals manage to avoid the taxes that the rest of us have to pay - at an astronomic total of £175bn/year, it is far more than the real total benefit bill. So if money has to be taken from anyone, the government can go and get it from these tax cheats!