Well, I’ve been working almost all of the weekend so I’ve
missed a great deal of news but even here, in the throne room, Twitter gives me
the occasional bitter glimpse of the world outside. I say glimpse, perhaps gimp
would be more appropriate, because the Labour gimps [non-partisan comment –
they ARE gimps] have been whipping themselves up into a right old froth ever
since the Philpott trial.
Like rabbits, they are; myxomatosic, pink-eyed bunnies, pinned
in the glaring headlights of the belated realisation that – whouda thunk it –
ordinary working people have an opinion on benefits as well. And their idea of
the Welfare State ISN’T the system we’ve got. Yes, even people who haven’t been
born into privileged lifestyles and gone on to Oxbridge to study Socio-economo-make-trouble-ology
or Fuckitupistics or taken a Masters in Machiavellian Misanthropy, going on to
work in Daddy’s constituency office as an expenses fiddle can see that a system
which allows some perfectly able, yet economically worthless people to not only
survive, but to thrive without work is a nonsense.
Labour’s response, having methodically used every trick
in the book to absolutely not, I repeat not, use Philpott for cheap shoddy
political point-scoring is to cobble together for the first time in three years
a little bit of policy. I don’t know what Demos has been doing, cooped up in
its little old thinky-tanky there, but this load of old cobblers is hardly the
work of the greatest minds the opposition can muster is it? I mean, even a thicky
like me can see it’s just a hollow, opportunistic and belated leap onto a bandwagon that’s been gathering pace for a couple
of decades.
Labour are planning to somehow link welfare pay-outs to personal
historical contributions. How can that EVER work? The biggest payers-in
are absolutely the least likely to ever need to take anything out - in so many ways Socialism literally robs the rich to pay the poor. And the
obverse, of course, is that those most in need of welfare are the least likely
to ever make significant contributions. And what about young people in
precarious employment?
“Aha!” say Labour, “but we have a plan!” Is it a cunning
plan, I ask?
“At the heart of Labour's plan is the reinstatement of
full employment as a government objective.”
And where, pray would these jobs come from?
“…they would be offered a real job with appropriate
training funded by the taxing of bankers' bonuses and restructuring pension tax
relief for the wealthiest.”
Oh, I see, so you still fail to grasp the nature and
inter-relatedness of earnings, taxation, the economy at large and the sheer folly
of employing ever more people directly by the state, then? Oh and guaranteeing
jobs in return for welfare? Isn’t that, did I miss something… weren’t you
virulently opposed to workfare?
Labour's entire budget solution
In another brave attempt to absolutely not distort statistics
to make a cheap, shoddy political capital Ed Balls added, "The whole
country will today see whose side this Conservative-led government is really on
and who is paying the price for their total economic failure." claiming that
as a result of the changes working families will be up to £4,000 worse off,
while millionaires receive average tax cuts of £100,000.
Listen Ballsy old fella, any “millionaire” receiving tax
reductions anywhere near that figure is clearly not taking full advantage of the
many perfectly legal tax avoidance vehicles that you and Brown were quite happy
to allow. Once again, Labour’s answers are scribbled on the back of a fag
packet and once again they rely entirely on the fruits of the magic money tree.
PS: As the late, truly great, sainted Margaret Thatcher remarked, "The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." Goodbye Mrs T, the world will never see your like again.
PS: As the late, truly great, sainted Margaret Thatcher remarked, "The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." Goodbye Mrs T, the world will never see your like again.
I for one can't wait for Labour to back holding the reins of power. I mean, those banker bonuses are going to be made to work so hard, paying for this and paying for that and funding the other.
ReplyDeleteThis is because money the 'wealthy' have (excluding union leaders, favoured feature writers, unfunny comedians, front bench mansion-owners and so on) is in fact, elastic. The taxable money can be stretched this way and that to pay for all things.
Equally I have to say that Labour's idea of a pound though being not quite the pound in anyone's pocket are misguided. Just because it is the stuff that holds up underpants too is irrelevant. It stretches, it gives (in the nicest way) and there's plenty of it.
Yes, Labour's plans are pants, but don't tell them I said that.
The sooner that the Conservatives realise that voting for their new Social Democratic version of the Conservative Party splits the UKIP vote, the better.
ReplyDeleteThe current Labour line-up is SO dangerous, that the Country literally could compeletely melt down within six months of them taking over.
Our credit ratings will be lost, our costs of borrowing will increase, people enveloped in the last Labour housing price bubble will see their already astronomical mortgage interest payments increase beyond affordability. Inflation will increase, welfare payments will simply NOT BE ABLE TO BE MET AT ALL.
So for the Labour loving, benefits scrounging, Union supporting, cheap labour immigration adoring, freaks of nature that will turn out in their droves come the next General Election, 'to get their money back'... we must turn out as an Army and ensure that we keep these bloody idiots out.