Archive for March 2013
I wish I had written this, but have to credit Tamworth Against the Cuts (http://tinyurl.com/tamworthagainstthecuts) who said “I wish i could take the credit for this as its pure genius,it was written by a friend and im sure she wouldnt mind.Help yourself.” Thank you, friend.
In a couple of weeks, the economy will be put right In the UK .
Because at last cuts such as the “bedroom tax” and universal tax credit come in, so we’ll finally get some money back off the richest people in this country – the poor. Any glance at our society makes it obvious who’s run up all the debts; the poor, that’s who, swanning around in charity shop cardigans and galavanting on shopping expeditions like the women in Sex and the City, squealing “Hey let’s go to Poundland and buy a dishcloth”, in ways the rich can barely dream of.
The rich have to pay for the poor’s avarice, with many currency speculators at Price Waterhouse having to take on extra work to make ends meet. They’ve barely finished destabilising the yen when they take two buses to a cleaning job, polishing a bedsit in Tower Hamlets. Many CEOs find their salary runs out and live on cat food until their bonus arrives, and 40 per cent of the board at the Royal Bank of Scotland are now on the game.
This is mainstream economics, that the poor are richer than the rich. Modern politicians must see a film on Comic Relief about starving children in Somalia and cry: “What a tragedy. Is it any wonder Africa’s in a pickle while the extravagant pigs flaunt their mosquitoes like that?” Then they call the number on the screen and pledge to help out the village by shutting down their well.
It’s an imaginative approach, because less qualified types might imagine the banking crisis may have been caused, in some part, by bankers. But it takes a trained mind to understand that the people who robbed us are the poor. If a government minister stormed into a bank in the middle of an armed robbery, he’d yell: “There are the robbers; those bastards lying on the floor tied up and snivelling that they don’t want to die. And someone help out this man, the poor chap’s trying to carry a sack AND a sawn-off shotgun, he’ll pull a muscle.”
It’s a tricky argument to pull off, that the poor caused the debt so they should pay it back. Maybe that’s why most weeks there are stories in certain newspapers about a woman with 45 kids on benefits, who then bought a giraffe and now that’s on benefits but she said it was cramped so the council has put it up in the Shard, and two of the kids have got Compulsive Potting Disorder so they’ve been given a snooker table but she couldn’t be referee because she’s allergic to white gloves so the mayor has to do it, otherwise he’d be put in jail by Europe.
Then they quietly drop the story when it emerges that the reporter missed out the detail that although it did happen, it was in a dream he had while suffering from food poisoning.
So it’s replaced with an article about a man on invalidity benefit who turned out to be secretly competing in triathlon tournaments in his loft, and there’s a woman who hasn’t worked since 1975 who receives so much in housing benefit that she pays Martin Amis to fill in her claim forms for more money. And they’ll print an extract that starts: “You ask why I have attended no job interview in 38 years and I can only weep the tears of a fallen angel, reach to the constellations and ask that you, dear assessor, replete in your cruddy crude crudeness, be spared the dodgy knee I’ve had all that time. Time. Whatever, whenever, whoever my succulent sobriquet, that may be. Oh, and I need a new fridge.”
Iain Duncan Smith will raise the case in parliament, until it turns out it was made up on a website called “People On Benefits Are Aliens From Jupiter – FACT!!!” and it is never mentioned again.
Then they turn to immigrants, and this time all politicians agree we can’t carry on as we are, paying all these benefits to them because we’re about to run out of everything. If he was to glance at his own department’s figures, Duncan Smith would see that 6.6 per cent of immigrants claim benefits, compared with 16.6 per cent of non-immigrants. Which goes to show that he doesn’t have time to look at figures because he’s a very busy man given that he’s working, and anyone who receives benefits who quotes a statistic correctly should have their money cut since they’ve been arsing about looking at numbers when they should be trying to get work.
At least they’re attacking the poor, though, who caused the mess in the first place. Because the banking system, as we know, was ruined by the residents of a tower block in Toxteth. In league with a woman from Sunderland on invalidity benefit with chronic back pain, they lent vast sums to international investors at the bottom of a stairwell by the bins, with not a thought for the damage caused to the global financial system. So now they’re being turfed out of their house for having a spare room for their kids. That’ll teach them.
For some time I have considered the sometime comment that goes along the lines of ‘even Thatcher wouldn’t have done this’. This opinion never sat right with me. I am always reminded of what Nye Bevan said of the Tory: “No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.”
I subscribe to that view, and consider that Tories differ only in their deviousness. And as I expanded on this thought, almost supernaturally, the idea, in its full glory came to me!
Thatcher would have done just what we are seeing today; only her methods would differ, considering the aim of all Tories is the destruction of a publicly funded welfare state.
Margaret Thatcher’s agenda was to make changes by the ‘drip, drip’ effect, slowly introducing changes, getting us used to them and increasing their severity relatively slowly. Her one failing was the introduction of the hated poll tax, which was a push too hard, too quickly and was her downfall.
This administration, I believe through study and careful consideration has decided to take a different approach- that of desensitising us. Rather than introduce changes slowly and discretely, they have decided to make severe changes quickly, in the hope we desensitise and become accepting of each new encroachment into our rights and wellbeing; in effect that we become accustomed and adapt to them, expecting nothing more, nothing less.
Of course, this methodology has the added bonus of making their changes much harder to reverse (if there was a viable political opposition with the will to do so).
That is what we are up against; that is why I believe we must have an opposite and equal agenda to rid ourselves of the cultural, economic and political enemies of the proletariat.
First point, the survey was of landlords; we don’t know what questions they were asked.
Second point, there is no indication of how landlords have got their figures; are they based on the number of people who asked to downsize; did they survey their tenants; if so what questions did they ask?
With nowhere to move to, maybe people have given up on the idea of moving and decided to try to pay- hardly a choice!
“The ‘bedroom tax’ is the new great lie of the Left and the BBC. How on earth can a small welfare cut be a tax?”; My response to Stephen Glover.
This is my respnse to Stephen glover’s article written here- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2292967/The-bedroom-tax-new-great-lie-Left-BBC-How-earth-small-welfare-cut-tax.html
First, Lord Best is an authority on social housing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Best,_Baron_Best
He is a cross bench peer, not a political ‘lefty’ and hardly ‘obscure’.
“The first rule of political propaganda is that if you repeat a plausible slogan enough times, and it goes unchallenged, it will eventually be widely believed.”; such as ‘skivers and scroungers’?
“But, of course, the bedroom tax is not a tax at all. A tax is a levy imposed by the State on the earnings of an individual or a company, or it is added to certain purchased goods. The ‘bedroom tax’ is a deduction in benefit, and is essentially voluntary.” Income tax is voluntary too; you can work and pay it, or not work and not pay it; as with taxable goods- you ‘volunteer’ to buy them. A tax, by your own definition is a levy on goods or earnings; so, by your own definition the reduction in benefit- the ‘levy’ if you have an extra bedroom- ‘goods’- is a tax.
“The first purpose of the measure is to free up under-occupied flats or houses…” untrue; the first purpose of the measure, admitted by the government is to reduce expenditure on housing benefit.
“There is also a potential saving to the enormous £23 billion-a-year cost of housing benefit of about half a billion pounds, or just over two per cent of the budget.” Miniscule, when compared to the £21 TRILLION in offshore accounts avoiding U.K. taxes.
“An ever-growing number of people — the elderly, the disabled, foster parents, those with children away fighting for the Forces — will be exempt.” Untrue; the exemptions are not as all- pervading as they would have us believe; in fact, many are ‘discretionary’ as with disabled children, for example. Saying the elderly are exempt is a downright lie!
“But I do quarrel with the BBC for its incessant and unquestioning repetition of the phrase ‘bedroom tax’. To describe it thus is intentionally to make it sound nasty and cruel.” And I quarrel with terms such as ‘skivers and scroungers’ equally intended to make the unemployed sound nasty and idle.
“What would these critics do instead? It seems not to occur to them that Britain is a poorer country than it was five years ago. They are oblivious to our ever-growing debt, which is expected to increase from £1,000 billion when the Coalition took over in 2010 to £1,600 billion by the next election in 2015.” So, politicians and the idle rich create the debt, yet the poor have to pay? This debt could be paid easily by closing the tax loopholes the extremely wealthy enjoy, with little effect if any on their standard of living because most of their wealth sits in banks, usually foreign paying little or no U.K. tax!
“Of course, it daren’t say the truth — which is that the cuts in public spending so far have been pretty marginal, and the reduction of a quarter of the deficit has been achieved mostly through tax increases rather than decreases in expenditure. It is being hung, drawn and quartered every day by the BBC for a ‘crime’ it has not committed.” If the cuts are so marginal (which they aren’t at the sharp end) then what is the point; how are they decreasing the deficit and the national debt? Well, of course, they aren’t.
“On Tuesday evening, neither Mr Duncan Smith nor anyone else from the Department of Work and Pensions could be lured out of their bunker to mount a defence on BBC2’s Newsnight against the many calumnies about a ‘bedroom tax’”; of course, you idiot; because you cannot defend the indefensible; because they do not have the answers to the criticisms!
“Speaking of which, why can’t some minister eviscerate Labour for falsely claiming that the Coalition is imposing a ‘bedroom tax’ while bringing in a ‘tax cut for millionaires’? It is reducing the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p on earnings over £150,000, which is still a higher rate than that which applied throughout 13 years of Labour rule apart from the last few weeks.” Why is this fool trying to convince us he is right using a dichotomy of lies?
“This is not a nasty Government, though it may be an incompetent one. Where is the minister to nail the lie? The ‘bedroom tax’ is not a bedroom tax. It may be regrettable, but it can’t be avoided.” Well, Mr. Stephen Glover, try life at the sharp end, try finding the extra TAX out of benefits or low wages; you sir, are an incompetent reporter and an idiot.