Category Archives: Politics

Ferkin-Scheidt Speaks Out On “Dining Room Tax”

Posted on 11/03/2013 | Leave a comment

In the wake of revelations that Local Authorities will be allowed to classify dining rooms as “bedrooms” for the purposes of the so-called “Bedroom Tax”, the Coalition has moved to clarify the position still further.

A Government spokesman who wished to remain anonymous, but who is in fact Iain Ferkin-Scheidt (pictured below) was quoted today as saying:

Iain Ferkin-Scheidt yesterday

“Social housing tenants need to be clear about this. Any room that can be deemed superfluous to the requirements of a Housing Benefit claimant should be counted as a “bedroom” for these purposes – for example a dining-room, conservatory and so forth. I believe that some of you people still have what they used to call “parlours” – and yes, they can be defined as bedrooms too. This will be a matter for Local Authorities’ discretion, but they will need to justify their decisions to High Command.” Going a little purple around the jowls, Mr Ferkin-Scheidt went on: “We have to be very, very careful about terminology here. This is not a “bedroom tax”, it is a Spare Room Subsidy. The Prime Minister himself, long may he reign, has stated this. We want to make it quite clear that this is a measure aimed at shirkers, not workers. Lame excuses such as disability – if you’ll pardon the pun – simply will not wash; much as is the case with most of the frightful common types we’re aiming at here.”

When asked about the fact that many Housing Benefit claimants are actually workers in low-paid employment, Mr Ferkin-Scheidt remained bullish in his defence of policy. “It’s quite simple,” he explained kindly. “Those people on Housing Benefit cannot expect the rest of us to subsidise luxuries for them such as spare bedrooms and parlours and dining rooms or what-have-you, out of our taxes – particularly as many of us will actually be paying up to £100,000 a year less tax from April. As you can see from that figure alone, the country simply cannot sustain extravagance on this scale.

“Those who have failed to provide for themselves and their families, by obtaining only part-time or low-paid employment will have to accept that they are not deserving of the same privileges as good, honest, hard-working, tax-evading, Tory-voting people who bought their own Council Houses in the 80’s when St Margaret was Queen. We shall be taking further measures to ensure that this distinction is recognised, and to remove the burden of financial responsibility from the over-stretched rich. The fact is that the poor, the disabled and the long-term sick have had it easy for far, far too long now. I am currently studying proposals for what some are already calling a “Hot Tap Tax”, although it is in fact a heated water subsidy. Some of us feel – in all compassion and sincerity – that it is an unconscionable luxury for the Shirking Classes to have hot water on tap, and it may well be that Housing Benefit claimants who live in homes with hot running water, showers, flush toilets and so on and so forth, will at some point in the future be subjected to a further cut of 30% in their Benefit, unless they take up the option of moving to a smaller property, with a stand-pipe, and outdoor privy and a well. We are determined to bring the good old days back to this great country.”

Pressed further on the matter of future proposals along these lines, Mr Ferkin-Scheidt refused to reveal any more concrete details, but promised a fuller statement after the second reading of the new “Workhouses & Treadmills Bill” currently proceeding through the House of Lords.

“This Government is pledged to firm, decisive action,” he confirmed. “Did your great-great-great grandmother have hot running water? No, of course she didn’t, and neither did mine – although she did have staff to carry heated water up eight flights of stairs for her – but that’s to become tied up in detail. There’s fridges, too, and all those nasty wide-screen TV’s. Did Sir Winston’s mother have a fridge? Or a 42” LCD TV? And, look – let’s be totally honest here. Ice can be chipped from a frozen well, and allowed to melt. Cold water can then be heated for all the simpler needs of the sub-strata of society, and a short walk down the street to a shared privy never killed anybody, except a few disease-ridden ne’er-do-wells who were never going to become economically productive units anyway. Hot water and indoor flush toilets are privileges, not rights – and we are determined that the Party of Privilege shall live up to its traditions and ensure that people are once again well aware of their place in life.”

Mr. Ferkin-Scheidt is 104.

Will the New ‘Personal Independence Payment’ Actually Deprive Disabled People of Their Independence?

Posted on 27/02/2013 | 4 comments

As a former Welfare Rights Worker with C.A.B. in Pontefract and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, I’ve retained an interest in social policy developments in general, and Welfare Benefits legislation in particular. You may take the boy out of advice work, but you can never quite take advice work out of the boy – and the Citizens Advice Bureau ethos of aiming to ensure that people are not disadvantaged for a lack of help and representation still means a lot to me.

This is particularly so now, at a time when a lot of vulnerable and helpless people are being targeted by a government apparently determined to make budget savings at the sharp and painful end of life. With the intention of keeping myself up-to-date, I do plenty of reading – and this includes a lot of anecdotal experiences. The feeling out there right now appears to be one of near panic, and a hideous insecurity over what plans are being drawn up to dump the chronically sick and disabled on the scrapheap of dependence upon others, in the name, ostensibly, of prudent public spending.

One of the major worries is the forthcoming replacement of Disability Living Allowance by the new “Personal Independence Payment” (PIP). It’s a snazzy new name for a misleading product, conjuring up, as it does, an image of a newly-liberated individual, spreading metaphorical wings and savouring the new-found freedom liberally bestowed by a benevolent government. Sadly, the reality is likely to be somewhat different, as Linda Cox explains in an article – quoted in full below – which was originally posted on the Facebook page “The People Vs The Government, DWP and Atos“. Linda is a carer, and she sets out in graphic terms some likely consequences of these benefit changes, which will be taking effect in a phased introduction from April of this year:

The musings of a pissed off madwoman/wife-of-a-wheelchair-user

Say someone applying for PIP has a made to measure, lightweight wheelchair, which they paid for out of their DLA, so they can self propel, as opposed to the wheelchair clinic issue, which is a really heavy, cumbersome, monstrosity of a wheelchair, which has to be pushed by a carer.

If you can propel your lightweight wheelchair 20 metres, you fail to qualify for PIP.

So, you will need to use this chair as your only transport, as you have no benefit for a travel budget. Your chair gets used over all kinds of terrain (gravel and cobbles are the most fun), for miles as in losing your PIP, you can’t pay for your car and it is taken away. Wait… you can’t self propel as far as the local shop (and it’s uphill), let alone for over a mile into town. But as long as you can propel for 20 metres (the length of two buses)… the world is your oyster… apparently.

How do you pay for the maintenance of said wheelchair? £200 for a replacement seat, £100 for a new set of front wheels, £40 for new tyres…. all needing more frequent replacement, because of the extra usage. Where does this money come from?

I guess you could always use the hospital issue chair.. then you would need a carer to push all the time, but wait… your carer has lost their allowance, because you lost your PIP… in fact, your carer is on workfare now…. or if lucky enough, in full time employment.

Damn… this is getting complicated.

So, a wheelchair accessible cab is rare and has to be booked well in advance in order to get one…after all… there are so many wheelchair users no longer qualifying for PIP, so lots of competition for cabs now. A return trip for town is £15, that’s a lot of money to find out of well… nothing.

Let’s grab a bus… yes; buses have ramps and wheelchair spaces now! Great. Except the wheelchair spaces are all full of pushchairs. Damn… wait for the next bus. Oh dear, the next bus isn’t accessible. No point in going home in between because just getting to the bus stop has knackered you out… it’s further than 20m away and you had to keep stopping and resting on the way.

It’s pouring down with rain… not unusual in the UK… you can’t self propel in heavy rain as your tyres get slippery. Damn. Stranded. Just sit here and get soaked then and hope it stops… which it doesn’t sometimes.

Sod it. Just stay in. Who needs to see a doctor or a dentist or go to a hospital appointment… or shop for food (you can’t carry much in a wheelchair anyway – it makes it too heavy to self propel on the back and it slides off your lap…. especially on cobbles… I mentioned cobbles already, didn’t I?)

Can anyone explain to me, how when you have kept your independence, because you had DLA, the assessment for Personal Independence Payments penalises that very independence and you end up penniless and housebound?

Don’t tell me this is unintentional.

Thank you for reading.
~ Linda ~

That accusation of a new benefit, actually containing the word “Independence” in its title, yet having such a devastating effect on the hard-won independence of disabled people, who have hitherto managed alright for themselves due to their current DLA entitlement – that is deeply ironic. It’s also scandalously wrong, and potentially tragic – but sadly it remains a fact that people will believe what they are told, if they are told it often enough, no matter how outrageous the deception – as I’ve mentioned before, it’s The Big Lie in action.

These changes will happen; the determination of Cameron’s Coalition to follow their chosen course has seen to that. But this doesn’t absolve us as citizens from our responsibility for those unfortunates who will be most severely affected.

Should the disabled pay the highest price? I really don’t think so.

Surely, it’s time to stand up and be counted.

4 Comments

Posted in Life, News, Politics

Tagged Benefits, Coalition, Disability, Government, independence, Tories, wheelchairs

Scrounging Graduate In “I Expect To Get Paid For Working” Scandal

Posted on 12/02/2013 | Leave a comment

“Daily Fail” Leader Column

In what is being seen by wishy-washy commie pinko do-gooders as a landmark ruling, senior judges have ruled that a university graduate was correct to claim government back to work schemes were “legally flawed”. As part of an appalling betrayal of their fellow members of the ruling elite, the three bewigged buffoons have quashed regulations entitling the government to force benefit claimants to work for nothing. The decision, handed down by the Court of Appeal but still subject to further legal avenues, will be seen as a dark day for those who view a return to slavery as the only way of maximising the economic potential of the poor.

Nit-picking

Government sources were today taking comfort in the fact that the panel of judges were not critical of back-to-work schemes as such, but were merely nit-picking over the irritating principle that ”Proles expect to be paid”. Cate Reilly (24), the university graduate who brought the original case, had been required to work for multi-million pound High Street tat retailers Poundland, instead of pursuing her voluntary work in a museum. Ms Reilly was shockingly frank in her remarks after the decision was made public: “I don’t think I am above working in shops like Poundland”, she stated. “I now work part-time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working.”

Mercenary

It is the impact of those last seven words that will be worrying ministers today. It would seem that, on the back of the troublesome minimum wage legislation passed by the previous government, even benefit claimants will now expect to be paid actual money for their job experience opportunities. This is seen as deeply disturbing by the government. A stricken and tear-stained DWP junior minister, who did not want to be named, quavered: “These nasty, ungrateful peasants should be grateful for the chances we’re giving them. But oh, no – they want to be paid. This is the sort of mercenary attitude that we see all too often, even in these hard times when we should all be pulling together. Companies like Poundland create a lot of wealth, and that helps drive the economy and pay bankers’ bonuses. How are they supposed to fulfil their obligations to shareholders if they’re going to have to start paying people?”

Bullish

Employment Minister Mark Hoban was in a more bullish mood, stating, “Ultimately, the judgment confirms that it is right that we expect people to take getting into work seriously if they want to claim benefits”. The government’s position, then – thankfully – is likely to remain that claimants should prioritise obtaining work over more frivolous considerations like being paid for it. We should, perhaps, be grateful for small mercies.

Unwashed

The TUC, on the other hand, was taking a predictably wild and woolly line, claiming that mandatory back-to-work schemes “need to be looked at again”. This will be seen by worried Cabinet members as a direct challenge to the official line that poor, largely unwashed benefit scroungers should be marginalised, exploited for every penny possible. This type of economic resource is vital as the country fights its way back to a position where MP’s can ask for a 32% rise in pay without causing outrage in grim northern provincial centres of Marxism where no self-respecting Tory would be seen dead.

Dangerous

Anybody who fails to take this worrying development seriously should be warned as to possible consequences by the words of a partner at leading law firm, Manches. Tom Walker, the employment law partner, stated that “This judgment upholds what is perhaps the key tenet of employment, namely the ‘work wage bargain’. If someone gives their labour to a company, they should be paid for it. However well intentioned a workplace scheme may be, it is very dangerous to introduce compulsory unpaid labour into the UK employment market.”

Treason

It is precisely this kind of dangerously retrogressive, sentimental and frankly treasonous thinking that is liable to drag our country back to the dark days before the average pay of a Chief Executive Officer reached levels 400 times that of the average employee. There is a real danger that, without the Government’s forward-thinking and courageous plans to create a sector of society who will expect to work for no financial reward, we could return to a time when the top people were getting by on perhaps no more than ten times the salary of the man in the street.

Now if that doesn’t worry you, then all of Mr. Cameron’s good work so far has been a waste. We have to stand firm – it is no less than our God-given duty. We must remember who we are, where we’re from and get back to exploiting those untapped resources at the bottom of the pile. That’s the Tory way, and that, says the “Daily Fail“, is what we are all bound to protect.

The Big Lie – David Cameron’s Divide And Rule Strategy

Posted on 08/02/2013 | 7 comments

The concept of The Big Lie as a propaganda technique has a long and well-documented, though tragically chequered history. It was a charge leveled at Jews by Adolf Hitler, with chilling irony as it turned out, accusing them en masse of laying the blame for Germany’s defeat in World War I at the feet of German General Erich Ludendorff.

Hitler’s definition of the Big Lie in his infamous “Mein Kampf” referred to a lie which is “so colossal that no-one would believe anyone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”, and which would therefore, paradoxically, be accepted as true. “Mein Kampf” was published in 1925, but history tells us that both Hitler and his loathsome creature of propaganda, Josef Goebbels, would use the Big Lie technique in an attempt to justify the persecution and mass murder of six million Jews, many of them German citizens, during World War II. Historian Jeffrey Herf maintains that the Big Lie was employed by the Nazis to transform a long-standing antisemitism into a culture of acceptance for a programme of genocide, at least among the thousands of people required to collaborate or actually undertake the mass-slaughter of so many fellow human beings.

The Nazis’ euphemistic reference to a “Final Solution” was intended to mask a foul crime, perpetrated on a vast pan-continental scale, and justified by the Big Lie. It is the most extreme example conceivable of what can happen when such an effective propaganda tool is deployed and redeployed, over and over, a drip-feed of hate-fueled misinformation which sinks deeply into the public consciousness and breeds uncritical acceptance of dogmas that might otherwise be hotly disputed. But the identical technique continues in use today, and while the end result is not comparable to the fate of the Holocaust victims, the thinking behind modern propaganda, with its intent of marginalising an entire section of society, is directly analogous.

Enter the Big Liar

The current Government’s presentation of its policies to tackle a massive public debt is an object lesson in the effective use of the Big Lie. Pathologically opposed to any measures which might unduly affect the “wealth-creating potential” of the better-off, they are nevertheless determined to make massive reductions in public expenditure, and have targeted the Welfare Budget as a potential source of great savings. The impact on household budgets, of which every penny is already earmarked, is readily foreseeable. Once you cut to the bone, any further cuts are likely to lead to collapse, and fears are being expressed by voluntary organisations like the Citizens Advice Bureau that the consequences for the poorest will be grave. It’s also realistic to fear that the creation of a sub-culture, helpless to resist the diminution of its resources and likely to be forced into dependence on food banks, is inimical to prospects for national recovery. Looked at in that light, how can such policies be presented as The Answer To All Our Problems?

Enter the Big Liar, stage right. Since the formation of Cameron’s Coalition ConDem government, it’s been noticeable how much we’ve heard, via every mouthpiece and interface of the media, about Benefit Cheats. Benefit Fraudsters. Welfare Scroungers. Shirkers, Not Workers. Now, any government worth its rhetorical mettle is good for the odd sound-bite, but Mr. Cameron’s administration are as hot as any in peddling its preferred take on the “issues that face us all”. And after all, who could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously? So it must be true, then. Meanwhile, those responsible for the banking crisis, the Libor scandal, and other examples of fat cats acting criminally – or merely irresponsibly – in their frantic scramble to get even fatter, must be very grateful for where the spotlight is currently shining.

You have to listen very patiently to the more serious news outlets to hear about the depredations visited upon us by the rich and greedy. But it’s open season on those hampered by disability, poor employment prospects, sickness, infirmity and grinding poverty. Soft targets all, and there are plenty of establishment-friendly tabloids happy to feed us a daily diet of how tax money is wasted on affording such ne’er-do-wells a life of luxury, and the privilege of snoring behind drawn blinds whilst the industrious head off to work.

So how do these stories stand up to closer examination? Well, hardly at all, in truth. The “shirkers, not workers” myth is easily exploded – merely by looking at the proportion of the welfare budget spent on in-work benefits. These are benefits paid to those who have a job, but one where the wage is so pitifully low that it’s impossible for the family to subsist without an income supplement. Hardly shirkers, these people – exploited? Yes. Scroungers? It’s the Big Lie in action.

What about Benefit Fraud, then? Again, you’d be surprised to read the figures, given the loud and plaintive trumpeting of this “scandal” by the likes of the “Daily Mail”. It appears the Great British Public believe that 27% of the Welfare Budget is claimed fraudulently. The official UK Government figure? 0.7%. 2-0 to the Big Lie.

The latest manifestation of the way in which a section of society is marginalised now rears its ugly head. Thousands of people currently entitled to Disability benefits due to their care or mobility needs are going to be re-assessed under notably harsher entitlement tests, over the next few years. No improvement in their condition, no lessening of their needs will be required for their benefits to be stopped. The goal-posts are being moved, and a lot of helpless people, who previously managed to conduct their own lives assisted by the benefit payable for their condition, will be shown the red card and banished to the hinterland of dependence upon others. Extreme examples of families on £20,000 a year in benefits are quoted to justify swingeing cuts. Believe me, you just don’t want to know how disabled you’d have to be to qualify for anything like that level of help. The Big Lie rides again.

This administration is unfocused and incompetent, thrashing about horribly in its desperation to somehow prove itself worthy of re-election. A shoddy, unattractive and vindictive lot. riven by internal strife and barely suppressed internecine warfare, far more concerned by partisan interests than fair government for all. But, hey – credit where it’s due: there’s not a whole hell of a lot that Josef Goebbels or Adolf himself could teach them about propaganda, oppression of the vulnerable and the Big Lie.

7 Comments

Posted in History, Life, News, Politics

Tagged Adolf Hitler, Austerity, Benefits, Coalition, David Cameron, Josef Goebbels, Nazis, The Big Lie, Tories

The Big Lie – David Cameron’s Divide And Rule Strategy

Posted on 08/02/2013 | 1 comment

Enter the Big Liar

1 Comment

Posted in History, Life, News, Politics

Tagged Adolf Hitler, Austerity, Benefits, Coalition, David Cameron, Josef Goebbels, Nazis, The Big Lie, Tories

Snouts In The Trough – But It’s Time Those Living High On The Hog Picked Up The Tab

Posted on 29/01/2013 | 1 comment

The thing about politicians is – if they’re not talking, or furiously thinking of a way out of their latest web of deceit, or maybe sleeping (a swift forty winks on the backbenches, the ultimate power nap), then they’re most likely at some or other official function, stuffing their faces with the finest of freebie food and drink.

Now, I’m not making a party political point here. I said “politicians”, and I meant the whole unsavoury crew of them, be they high-powered cabinet members, lobby fodder rank-and-file MP’s, or even your humble Joe Bloggs, Mavis Dogood or Tarquin FitzHerbert-Smythe in the local Council chambers. They all have the same basic bodily need for nutrition as us mere mortals. The difference is, they will quite often fill up to the Plimsoll line at the taxpayer’s expense. Is this fair or appropriate in these straitened times?

At a veritable crisis point of global financial meltdown, when our national debt is so high that even Wayne Rooney would need to ask for an extra week or two to pay it off, I find myself wondering: what’s the accumulated value of all the state and civic banquets, dinners, receptions, working lunches and other freebie jamborees that take place every day, all over the country? It must come to a good few bob. We’re not, after all, talking a few limp ham sandwiches, curling up at the edges and accompanied by motley shreds of anaemic lettuce. No, sir. These people do not skimp; they do themselves well, very well indeed. There’s proper, grown-up, posh food on heavily-laden and groaning tables – and it must be highly debatable how much productive thinking is left in those bloated plutocrats, after the desserts have been and gone, and the port, nuts and cigars pass around.

Of course, piling into the scran at the highest levels of power is nothing new. It’s been pretty much de rigueur ever since Henry I wolfed down half-a-dozen too many eels, and expired before he could gasp “surfeit of lampreys”. Kings, Queens, and assorted courtiers and other hangers-on have always been notable for their over-indulgence on rich food and fine wine. It sort of went with the territory in those far-off times, but it strikes a more discordant note these days when essential services – the culmination of the whole process of civilisation and enlightenment since before Henry I – are being cut left, right and centre. And yet still the state and political chomping goes on apace.

It’s only a matter of a couple of weeks since MP’s of all parties were calling for a 32% pay rise, despite their broad consensus that the rest of us should be grinning bravely and tightening our belts. Just what sort of message does that send out, when so much of their weekly calorific intake is provided and paid for, as part of their remit as legislators of our country? And the same applies at least in some degree to our business leaders – no subsidised canteen serving scrummy beans on toast with a poached egg on top for them – it’s Marco-Pierre White catering at the very least, no error – and waiter, send that bill to Accounts, there’s a good chap.

What if – bear with me here – what if MP’s, ponderous boardroom types, and indeed power-brokers everywhere were to embrace a novel concept, and actually pay for some of the scrumptious fare that comes their way so often, and gratis at that? If this were the general principle, multiplied across all the many thousands of vastly expensive official meals and banquets that take place in this over-stretched nation every week, what would be the saving to the national purse? I’m struggling to work that out on my fingers and in my head, but it’s a big, big number, make no mistake. It’s not as if the people we’re talking about are exactly impoverished – are they now? And what do the rest of us do when it’s time for lunch at work? Not everyone has even the subsidised canteen; many of us are away down to the high street for a cheese roll, which we’re – quite reasonably – expected to fund out of our own pockets.

It’s about time we all woke up to the fact that, on a grand scale, we’re being made right mugs out of, you and me. Every time there’s a new cost-cutting measure, or another idea for a wage freeze, you can bet your life it’s been hatched over the smoked-salmon canapés and the pâté de foie gras. And what’s more, we’re the simple souls paying for it. Could that money not be used much more productively, elsewhere?

Just think about that, the next time you’re counting the pennies at the end of the month, and wondering whether you can delay the big shop till after the weekend. Then again, that might even act as an appetite suppressant. Just thinking of all those banquets, all that luxury food, and above all, where the bill’s heading – might just actually make you sick.

1 Comment

Posted in Politics

Tagged Animal Farm, banquet, Henry I, Monarchy, MP's, Parliament, public pay, public services, Wayne Rooney

Unity, Not Division – The Lessons Of The London Olympics.

Posted on 02/01/2013 | 1 comment

“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times…“

Charles Dickens’ summing up of one particular period in history could serve very well as an epitaph for many years in this century, or any other – but few more so, surely, than 2012 – a time of unity, yet a time of division.

This was a year of high peaks and deep troughs. From a United Kingdom perspective, we can look back with pride on a triumphant staging of the Olympic Games and the Paralympics in London last summer. Rarely can a sporting spectacle have so united people; many who would normally fail to show a flicker of interest in sport were swept along on the wave of enthusiasm generated by the performances and achievements of our gallant competitors.

Sport in a wider sense came to the fore as a catalyst for optimism and togetherness. Andy Murray had his best Wimbledon ever, won over cynical hearts with his tears after narrowly losing in the Final, and then swept to Olympic gold and – at last – won a Grand Slam event, the U.S. Open. The Ryder Cup golf team, having dug themselves into a frightful hole, emerged gloriously as winners in the end, a comeback as miraculous as any other in that competition’s history. Even the Test Cricket team, having started the year poorly, ended it victoriously, winning in India for the first time since 1984.

As we are always being told, though, sport isn’t everything. In a wider sense, the news has not been so good. Austerity continues to cast a shadow over all of us – though that shadow appears to be significantly longer for some than for others. The mantra chanted by our rulers is “we’re all in it together”. But the question of just what we’re in, and to what depth, is left open.

What seems undeniable is that there are unsettling signs of division being created in society as a matter of policy. Divide and rule, as the old saw has it. The arithmetic of recovery seems to dictate that the way forward is belt-tightening all round. But some sections of the population are in danger of ending up so emaciated, that however much tighter they might fasten their belts, they’re still liable to be caught with their pants down when the bills fall due.

People claiming benefits – even the majority who claim in-work benefits – are being cast as the villains of the piece when culprits are sought for the mess we’re in. The marginal effect of cuts to income at this end of the scale is far greater than could be perceived by – to pluck an example out of thin air – a City banker. But such cuts are proving to be a popular measure, and this is due largely to the rhetoric directed against those whose circumstances force their reliance on state benefits. And let’s not forget that many of these citizens are just as industrious as anybody else, but are forced by low pay to seek financial assistance from the benefits system. Then of course there are the genuinely disabled. Who’s the real villain here?

Benjamin Franklin, prior to signing the U.S. Declaration of Independence, memorably stated “Gentlemen, we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. The message that no group of people can succeed and prosper who are divided against themselves, applies equally to society at large. We must beware the toxicity of creating schisms among our populace, however pragmatic an approach this might appear in Whitehall or Fleet Street when harsh measures need to be justified.

The feel-good factor of 2012 was all about unity and pride in the nation and its achievements; anybody who witnessed the Olympics, or Wimbledon, or indeed the traditional Last Night of the Proms could bear witness to that. The contrast with this current process of division is stark, and telling. Any policy that promotes whispering campaigns, suspicion and dislike of any group of people, merely to popularise draconian financial sanctions, is negative and unjust in the extreme. We must surely look to the good of last year, to unity and positivity, as embodied when the nation as a whole got behind our athletes and parathletes. This is the ethos that should drive any programme of recovery, not a selective demonising of a whole, hapless section of society.

If we really are all in it together, then we have to stick together, and succeed together. Surely that is the best lesson 2012 has for this New Year.

1 Comment

Posted in Life, Politics, Sport

Tagged Austerity, Benefits, London, Olympics, Sport, UK

America’s Credit Rating

Posted on 18/12/2012 | Leave a comment

From: International Arms Inc.

To: America, Washington DC, America

Dear America

We were concerned to hear of the recent downgrading of your credit status. We would remind you that your outstanding unpaid account with us currently stands at $3.86 trillion and 46 cents. As most of the goods and services purchased with your credit facility are of a non-redeemable, and indeed fissionable nature, we feel that our position regarding the extent of your credit has become untenable, and we therefore require you to redress the situation forthwith.

Please settle this account within 7 working days. Failure to do so may result in a personal call at your home, and the removal of goods, statuary and minor geographical features. We feel that you would prefer for this situation to be avoided, particularly under the gaze of your neighbours Canada and Mexico (to say nothing of Cuba). You may also of course find it harder to obtain credit in the future.

Please do not ignore this letter. You can discuss your situation with our trained and friendly advisers, who will be happy to assist in any way they can, short of showing any compassion, understanding or reasonableness regarding concessions or longer term arrangements etc.

Payment can be made at your local Post Office using the counterfoil at the foot of this letter, or by remittance in the enclosed envelope. Please do not forget to affix a stamp.

Many thanks for your co-operation in this matter.

Yours etc
IA Inc.