Skip to main content


On Friday morning, hapless BBC radio phone in host John Darvall presided over a discussion about the proposed welfare cash card; an idea put forward by some hapless no mark Tory trying trying to ingratiate himself with his betters. The idea of course is total bunkum and cannot possibly work; sadly that's the hallmark of good Tory policy these days. 

Naturally the discussion was filled with curtain twithers and ignorance. The comments were filled with the twitching received nonsense about welfare paying people not to work etc. These views are proffered in an almost plagiarised fashion.

At least four times, during the hour long debate, Mr Darvall (who comes across as some kind of low rent Alan Partridge, sans Lexus) explicitly referred to porn as one of the things that a card user wouldn't be able to spend their money on. Porn? Seriously? Why is this mentioned? Who has told him to refer to porn in the same breath as other things like alcohol or fags? How many benefit claimants spend their welfare on pornography? 

The first caller gets things going in typical fashion commenting that 'we' (ie the poor old taxpayer) are subsidising 'their' (ie the scrounging morass of shirkers) alcohol and drug habits. No facts are presented regarding just how many benefit claimants, which would necessarily include pensioners, are users. So instead the listener is tacitly invited to assume that most if not all are users. If that were ever to be true then I'm sure the relevant industries would have objections to a cash card. Just like the pay day loan sharks would.

Sky TV is also mentioned - again. It is also not pointed out that people, those on welfare that do have a Sky account (never mind a dish, which one may have without an active account, like me) may have set theirs up prior to losing their job. Furthermore once such a person is sacked they aren't going to find Mr Murdoch willing to let them out of their contract and come and prepossess the dish and box. That's the nature of big business; happy to take your money in the good times, notsomuch in the bad. So instead we blame the claimant, on superficial evidence much like the closed curtains debacle.

All these ridiculous icons of a perceived 'good' life that, to quote the callers, 'working people have to pay for'. Well you don't have to pay for them anymore than the unemployed do; noone's forcing you to sign up to Murdoch's death machine anymore than they are making you drink and smoke. But people are programmed to believe these are the measures of success in life: owning a sky box, a plasma TV, an xbox, and being able to drink stagnant liver rotting water. So much so that seeing others have access to these things, without any explanation of how, is enough to drive people against each other.

Naturally these issues are not discussed. Instead people are invited to bray and babble, putting out statements of such airheaded ignorance it would embarrass a valley girl. The really sad part is nothing is challenged. These discussions, and this is not the first (as I've commented before) nor will it be the last, are so feeble that all they do is promote the status quo and become an echo chamber for media fed ignorance happily exploited by benefit claiming millionaires such as Gideon Osborne. But it's ok; the callers know these things 'for a fact'. One chump even says that, when he used to claim, he played the system! Er?

So the callers are in favour of a cashcard that, according to the idiot presenter (he really is), precludes people purchasing all sorts of things that are all on sale in the supermarkets serving as the only places cashcard users can shop. How would that work then? We'll gloss over that of course. The truth is that the supermarkets would have to retrain their staff and reprogramme their checkouts, especially the self service ones. How else would they be able to distinguish between a bottle of scotch and a bottle of milk, how would they stop me buying a dvd, or a newspaper, or some batteries, or a pack of exercise books, some biros, a cuddly toy? What happens if the card isn't accepted because of a malfunction? What happens to unspent money on the card? What happens if someone does have some spare cash because they were able to shop around - this is the kind of socialism the government likes, despite their apparent love for the free market. Socialism for the rich, with their inherited wealth, tax breaks, land subsidies etc, and free market capitalism, with all its fraught perils, for the poor.

Do we assume that money spent on social activities/entertainment is a luxury? Do these people want to ban library access to the unemployed as well? It's a recipe for social destruction. That doesn't stop some old bird comparing wartime rationing with a welfare cash card scheme: if it was ok during the blitz then it's ok now! Apparently no one complained back then (yeah right). Clean your rosy spectacles my dear!

Sadly the elephant in the room is trumpeting it's head off but none taking part can hear it: wages are terrible. People perceive benefits as more generous because they themselves work long hours for very little. Why aren't these people organising to do something about that? Why not take up solidarity with existing unions - including with people out of work since it affects all of us, working or otherwise? Can't be bothered; far easier to presume laziness on the part of others and ignore it in ourselves.

Darvall casually misrepresents Jobseekers Allowance by £50 (over 50%); "£120 a week or whatever it is". Lazy journalism, but about what I've come to expect from local radio. And he keeps referring to pornography!

One caller, naturally supportive of this nonsense, rationalises her thinking by way of saying her (ex) friend spends her welfare down the pub. Well of course. A typical, unexplained, baseless anecdote. If this story is true, and of course the details are not provided, then the friend in question is clearly an addict. The first thing such a person would do with a cash card is sell it. They are still forced to participate in a capitalist free market economy, only with thoughtless restrictions that do nothing to address the causes of her problem. All stick no carrot. 

Final comment comes from someone who, despite never having claimed, believes the system he has no experience of is too generous.



  1. All it takes is a little deep thinking isn't it? For example, when I was out of work a couple of years ago I cancelled my Sky subscription. The dish remained attached to the outside wall, and the box remained plugged into the TV. Sky did not ask for the equipment's return, so I kept it. When I got another job I renewed my subscripton, and carried on using the old box and dish. But that's the trouble isn't it? People don't think. They don't ask questions beyond what they read in their Sun or Daily Mail, and go around blinkered and ignorant, sanctimonious in their own world of self satisfaction...

    1. the presenters give the audience what they want to hear. facts be damned.

  2. State expenses bein' frittered on 'frankie vaughan', eh? Now then - Where've I heard that before???? Oh, that's right! The ex-home secretary's (jacqui smith's) husband!!

    This darvall nincompoop (going by what I've read on your blog) reminds me of the 'Viz' cartoon character "Major Misunderstanding"

    Either that, or he has a propensity for watchin' 'frankie' himself and was makin' some sort of mass freudian slip. Wouldn't surprise me.

    Thinkin' on, will I be allowed to continue buyin' Viz with this card, if it gets introduced??? (Not bleedin' likely) or will newspapers/magazines be on the 'proscribed' list, too?

    1. I know I certainly charge my porn to the home secretary!

      Darvall is just a bland buffoon. He's mostly harmless, somewhat cringeworthy, with a touch of the Alan Partridge. Politically he's only right wing by default, which means that because he makes no effort to correct the nonsense he reports or the bigotry people contribute he takes a position without knowing it. It's just typical bbc bollocks. They call themselves objective, but this kind of factless lazy presenting says otherwise.
      I'm still waiting for the producer to call me back from the last time he made a twat of himself and I complained. I'm a bit bored at the moment so perhaps I might complain again.

  3. "£120 per week, or whatever it is........."


    Jesus wept. Why are imbeciles like this darvall in these sorts of jobs??

    1. because they appeal to the curtain twitching bland middle of the road programmed opinions of the audience. Don't want anyone with a brain or an original opinion, based on fact and evidence, that would upset them, like a protest at a cliff richard gig.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

U.N. and Them

What are my thoughts on this?

It's a humanitarian crisis. Is that a phrase we should only reserve for famines in Africa or force majeure? We seem to have a blind spot to these things when they are on our own doorstep - it couldn't happen here, could it?


Seven years of the most brutal selfish and greedy governance, not to mention the least competent, has brought us to the point where the United Nations are telling the Tories they are causing a 'human catastrophe' amongst the disabled and the sick. This is not the first time, and even that doesn't include their comments on the hated and spiteful (not to mention ineffectual) Bedroom Tax.

Do the Tories persist with these policies because they actually believe they are correct or even moral?

Or is it because they have no other way to appease the media attack dogs and/or the braying Shirefolk that delight in persecuting the poor as they do torturing foxes and badgers?

Is it both?

We have a government, in a first wor…

Into the Mirror

So tomorrow morning is my WCA. Needless to say I am not looking forward to it, and that would be an understatement. It's currently sitting in my mind, refusing to leave, cooking up a stultifying negativity. That's the thing with depression; it's a presence that, even if you manage to distract yourself for a time, it returns with hammer-like vengeance. That feeling alone is enough to make the problem of depression the horrible reality it is. Sucker punched by your own thoughts.

Logically - as if we live in a logical society - I should pass. My situation is unchanged from last year. However that is exactly why I won't pass. You might think it reasonable to simply report that fact, but the simplicity of doing so, the ease of process, is exactly why you can't. Instead I will be seen, likely by someone different, and asked the same questions; some of which will not be relevant but part of the deceptive nature of the process. For example, being asked 'how did you get…