Monday, February 20, 2012

The Politics of Illusion

The square A is exactly the same shade of gray as square B
Some people, who I’m not going to link to, are having a moan about that nice but dim Gordon Brown “earning” £1.4 million since his retirement from Number 10 Downing Street. However, we should point out that it has all been donated to that nice but dim Mr Cameron’s “Big Society” Project.

We should also point out that in the same period, just under 2 years, the AVERAGE Premier League footballer has “earned” £10 million and the more petulant a mere £20 million despite refusing to play. But that’s not all, our gold studded stars have arranged to have the bulk of their “pay” designated as “image rights” which attracts a mere 25% in Corporation Tax as opposed to the 50% on “income”. Well, you would wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you? Still, I suppose it means they have more cash to pay the home help and security staff a minimum living wage.

Then we have our good friend Cllr Paul Canal, Conservative, bemoaning that Amira gets £40k in Housing benefits + Income support. Now take a look at the Guardian article referred to.

Amira is paying £812 per week in rent to a private landlord which = £42,224 per year. Average pay is about half that amount. Why is this?

It’s because Paul’s heroine, Mrs Thatcher, sold off most of the council housing so the poor have to rely on the private sector and thus the state [taxpayer] picks up the tab. And now, when times are hard, the Conservatives are complaining about the bill, you have to have a larf, don’t you?

You don’t have to be an Eton educated half-wit to work that one out. What’s that saying? Oh yes – Beware of unintended consequences!

It’s going back a few years now (1999) but my Dad paid about £65 per week for his council flat. Admittedly he was probably the only person in the block actually paying out of his own funds, but nevertheless that money went to the Local authority who were able to keep that money within the local economy.

So, where is Amira’s £42,224 Housing benefit going. Er, it’s going to a private Landlord’s off-shore bank account. It’s not in Amira’s purse to buy food or clothes for her children in the local economy.

Who exactly is profiting from Housing Benefit? It’s not the poor for sure! It’s the rich.

Our economy is being sucked dry (by the already rich) of the means to sustain itself with the complicit sanction of successive “establishment” governments populated by educated idiots.

Rant over! Discuss.

Oh! By the way, the proof of the illusion above is here.

5 comments:

  1. So, has anyone spotted the subliminal message that Squares A and B represent the Conservative and Labour Parties?

    ReplyDelete
  2. My goodness! Have I just read a good word in defence of that miscreant Gordon Brown? The man, according to our right wing friends, who was responsible for the American banking crash, global warming, Dunkirk, 9/11, the sinking of the Concordia, the assasination of President Kennedy and bankrupting the UK.

    When this collection of Eton educated idiots, masquerading as a 'government', led by a Prime Minister who's completely hog-tied by his 'deputy', has finished driving this country, together with its social services, the NHS and the police force, into the ground, it might be as well to look back at the real record of the last government - and not the account presented by the Daily Mail.

    Actually Gordon Brown was doing rather well until the greedy and irresponsible bankers in the USA cut the ground from under him.

    If we're so broke that everything has to be cut to the bone how can we possibly afford the gigantic expenditure on the Olympic Games and the Royal Diamond Jubilee? The money being thrown at those two events alone would probably have made most of Dave Big (Old Boys) Society's cuts unnecessary. Or are they being paid for anyway for by the national lottery?

    Incidentally, I wonder if those people who complained that Gordon Brown was an 'unelected' Prime Minister (he wasn't) are now able to tell us who elected Nick Clegg to be Deputy Prime Minister.

    Actually, I have nothing against Eton. It's a delighful place.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steady on there, Alfred.

    We were doing well under the last Government not because of it, but despite it.

    And we will recover from the sorry mess we are in now, not because of the present Government, but despite it.

    It's the Market!

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know, Weggis, on reflection, you may well be right!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think it helps just to lambast the government on every issue that comes along.

    I disagree with a lot of what they do, but I don't really understand why people who flog into London every working day by public transport, at great expense and very little comfort,from towns as far away as Southend, Luton etc. should have money which is taken from them in taxes used to enable people on a low income,or no earned income at all, to live in the kind of places they themselves could never dream of affording. I can't afford to live in Westminster but I don't expect you lot to foot the bill so that I can.

    I have absolutely no problem with our government using my money to provide a safety net for those who, for whatever reason, cannot provide adequately for themselves. However I think we have to keep at least one toe in the real world and acknowledge that,if you can't afford the best, you can't have it. And don't tell me that a flat with a rent of over £800 a week isn't an extremely desirable property.

    However, if you want your money to be used to improve lives, you are perfectly entitled to contribute to my upgrading from my elderly Volvo, which I can afford, to a new one, which I can't.

    ReplyDelete