Skip to main content

These Are a Few of my Favourite Things

Isn't it amusing, the hypocrisy of the right wing. Goods and services that are acceptable to everyone else, part and parcel of a healthy economy apparently, are somehow immediately verboten to claimants. The notion that a bottle of beer in the hand of a welfare recipient becomes a dangerous weapon: the key to personal ruin or family destruction. Or, perhaps more insidiously, the idea that a scratchcard in such a person's paws might mean they get even more free money! 

That's what Shelbrooke's bizarre list of unacceptable items really means; it would be an affront to him to see someone on benefits suddenly be elevated to financial stability. Those are rewards only for the deserving - hard working taxpayers. Only those people are allowed to have lottery cards, and of course the rich, as there's nothing stopping a millionaire from buying a lottery ticket and having the same chance to win as a pauper. The lottery doesn't recognise class divisions: it's equally generous, or equally cruel. But of course the poor are the most likely to fall for the lie that they have any real chance of winning. Consequently many feel that it's a tax on stupidity. The Tories didn't mind taxing the poor that way when the lottery first appeared. Now they do, even though the money paid - if indirectly from the 'hard working taxpayer' - goes to good causes and that money paid to elevate someone into financial stability is probably the best destination for a payout (as opposed to a round the world cruise and a few nice cars).

Now there's more than one lottery. Does Shelbrooke propose to ban access to all of them? What about the health lottery? Surely a Tory MP wouldn't object to that, though only because it offsets his government's responsibility toward the NHS. It's so confusing being a Tory: they are against the nanny state - but only when it suits them. They are all for people making their own fortune, but not if you're a pauper winning big on the scratchcards. They are for aspiration - but not the aspiration of the poor to get out of poverty. That's more than aspiration however: it's survival. Nope, no hope that 'It Could Be You'!

Curiously Shelbrooke doesn't object to paupers being able to buy a TV license, just access to the Murdoch machine. You think it might be the other way around (though you'd need a TV license either way): Murdoch is a friend of the neoliberal machine oiled by the rhetoric of men like Shelbrooke. Murdoch's propaganda is pro Tory (for the most part) so wouldn't you want more Tory voters among the poor - those most likely to fall for the lies and tall tales perhaps? (That's a bit of a generalisation, forgive me - but the poor will include those that are less educated and less receptive to researching facts and figures.) So if it means allowing these people access to Sky - which doesn't mean giving them more money since Shelbrooke isn't arguing for a benefit cut as part of this nonsense. I wonder what Howling Mad Murdoch has to say about this? It might eat into his bottom line that the Tories are stopping people buying his service. Shelbrooke isn't arguing that the poor shouldn't watch TV, if he was he'd argue they shouldn't be able to pay for a license. I've not heard him say that. 

Meanwhile this stupid little Tory is out spending 'hard working taxpayers money' on his own license fee: we pay for one in his constituency office and his London home. Is that really consistent Mr Shelbrooke? If you valued hard work and taxpayers wouldn't you pay for a license for your second home at least? Why does your office need one? Do other people get to watch TV in their offices at work? If the argument is that taxes shouldn't go to such non-essentials then shouldn't that apply to you as well?

Comments

  1. There is no reason or logic behind this government's policies, only the blind search for votes. Same goes for backbench nobodies like Shelbrooke. The Tories are supposed to be against the "nanny state", yet they want to cntrol the spending habits of benefits claimants. They are supposed to stand for "personal freedom", yet many of them are against gay marriage.

    All of this government's policies are rooted in populism, and a cynical calculation is made about how many votes each policy will win them - if it's "popular" they'll support it. Hence the attempts to divide people withe the "strivers vs skivers" rhetoric, which I'm glad to see may be starting to backfire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will backfire, but unfortunately there's going to be a lot of anger and grief along the way. Unfortunately that looks like the price we're going to have to pay to exorcise these tory demons.

      Delete

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…

I Hate James Bartholomew

Know the Tory mindset: according to these creatures welfare breeds dependency. Meanwhile they do not want to set a minimum wage, they do not want to create legislation to protect the un - and under - employed from the predations of the system they benefit from. That word is chosen deliberately, because they like benefits for themselves - the ability to sack whom they like, when they like and how they like. In this UKIP are the same. This is the febrile heart of the right wing.
Yesterday on 5 Live's laughable morning phone in - bigots drink for free - another right wing excuse for a human, James Bartholomew, revealed another aspect of their nasty prejudice and staggering ignorance. Not surprisingly this vile creature was once a banker. He writes (if one can call it that) for the Telegraph and though I don't know the content of his ballot paper, I dare say I can guess. He props up every tory myth about the unemployed and welfare with dull witted aplomb.
He believes people have …

Magical Thinking

Well that's that for pursuing a diagnosis for Aspergers or anything remotely similar.

I contacted the Patient Advisory Liaison Service (PALS) to try and sort this out after being lied to by the clinician regarding referring me to the ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) people. That never happened and she continues to deny saying she would. Of course I cannot prove this and so the patient-doctor dynamic kicks in: I'm the lowly patient, she's the expert doctor, her reputation versus mine and so who wins?

I could make a complaint, but what would be the point. I might get a nice letter in a few months time saying sorry in a mealy mouthed way, but it doesn't get me any closer to what I need. That being a diagnosis, a formal, written and recorded, recognition of the issues I deal with. Lacking that, dealing with the systems in society, chiefly the DWP, becomes more difficult. Unfortunately the medical profession doesn't seem to care about that.

We have a society fuelled by …