In recent weeks, I have taken the liberty of emailing each and every one of the 650 Members of Parliament. It has been something of an eye-opener for this slow learner. For example, did you know that MPs are not permitted or required to reply to correspondence from non-constituents. Therefore, it is a bit difficult for amateur lobbyists such as yours truly when Mr, Mrs or Miss Elected Representative is unable and/or unwilling to respond. Nevertheless, some parliamentarians (bless them) did take the bait and had the courage and/or decency to grant my emails an answer. To cut a long and exciting (sic) story short, I suggested to the Westminster elite that each of the three main political parties (alternatively described by belligerent George Galloway as "three cheeks of the same bum") were reportedly bereft of ideas and policy proposals. Consequently, being the helpful young (sic) citizen that I am, I proceeded to make the foliticians aware of my manifesto as located lovingly at http://gw930.blog.com/manifesto
I wasn't remotely surprised that those who browsed through my 'manifesto' replied that there were some ideas that met with their approval and other proposals that did not. This is precisely how I feel about their manifestos too. There are various bits in each party manifesto which are appealing to me and there are others which are considerably more unattractive to my beautiful mind. In a nutshell, I am a radical whose ideas transcend the apparent ideological differences on planet politics. If one were to observe my various blogs revealing the Greedy Bastards of Great Britain, it would be apparent to the lucky reader that I have leftist tendencies. However, I am ultimately a square peg, because I also possess ideas which belong further to the right of the political spectrum. For instance, I am appalled by Britain's nanny state and wholeheartedly endorse the Conservative Party's attempts to improve and reform the benefits system and the rotting welfare state. In fact, my strong feelings about the dependency culture is uppermost in my mind in terms of determining my voting preference at the next national beauty contest in 2015.
Well, various raspberries were blown by the usual suspects at the Conservative Party Conference's most recent welfare reform proposals. The Daily Mirror [a perpetual apologist for benefits exploiters and trade unions that have a grudge against the Conservatives], fronted by its jocular Geordie Mr Kevin Maguire mischievously suggested that the Conservatives' 'earn or learn' scheme in which innocent, little unemployed wretches could be condemned to spending every weekday at the local job centre was a return to the bad old days of the dreaded workhouse. A number of others from the Left as well as representatives of soft touch organisations were equally keen to scoff at the imminent reforms.
Perhaps this reveals the flawed nature of Brits (and others elsewhere) that we are frequently resistant to change. Could it be that most people are conservative in so far as many and indeed any proposed reforms from our political superiors are opposed because they represent upheaval and oblige folk to evacuate the complacency and safety of their comfort zones and embrace the great unknown of change. However, we all need to improve ourselves and our society, and progress can only be achieved via change. This represents the great conundrum of modern society in that change is something of a terrifying concept. Admittedly, there is a maxim that if it ain't broken then it don't need changed. Regrettably, mankind is damaged, and Britain (and elsewhere) is "broken", so the bitter pill of change has to be swallowed by a multitude of reluctant patients.
Anyhow, I have digressed somewhat. The thing is that when benefits reform is proposed, one can be pretty damn sure that the media will wheel out one or two hard luck cases whose lives will be totally undermined by amendments to the welfare state. I admit wholeheartedly that there are people whose lives are characterised by poverty which is not of their making. However, I do also contend that there are many more who benefit a little too well from benefits. I invite any leftist and liberal and naive soft touch personage to visit all the betting shops and public houses in their locality, wherein they will find a whole host of gents who are clearly not working and yet who are able to splash the cash. How can this be? Have they all taken an early retirement? Have they all won the National Lottery? Or could it be that they are some of the recipients of welfare which has enabled them, I repeat, to benefit a little too well from benefits.
I believe that it is increasingly erroneous to use the term "benefits" because there appears to be a plethora of folk who do indeed benefit a little too well from benefits. Perhaps it would be more apt to describe state aid in future as "assistance", provided that it does actually and exclusively assist the deserving poor, rather than fund the dubious lifestyle of the idle. Furthermore, it might well be worth visiting the local council estate to discover just how many houses of the apparent down-at-heel have television satellite dishes and good quality cars parked outside. It might be an eye-opener or at least an uncomfortable truth for the Guardian, the Daily Mirror and other apologists of welfare exploiters to discover precisely how many people are able to drive up and down their local roads, all day, every day, in good cars, funded by a regular supply of fuel, car insurance, and car tax. Can it be humanly possible that such people are impoverished and living on the breadline, or is it closer to reality to ascertain that there are many people who are taking the urine by exploiting the benefits system and laughing all the way to the bank.
Of course, what is most sickening of all is that there are numerous genuinely poor people working in horrible minimum wage jobs who are indeed struggling to cope and maintain any semblance of a quality of life whilst benefits exploiters are enjoying an idle lifestyle at the expense of hard-working and low-paid taxpayers. Why does the British welfare state reward the idle and penalise the hard-working, low-paid workers?
The trouble with the Labour Party is that they prize the welfare state to such an extent that they often refuse to entertain any benefit reforms. The party prides itself with having established the welfare state in the latter half of the turbulent 1940s, and therefore feels obliged to conserve [that word again] this flawed 'institution'. However, now that Labour has been killing the hospitals and schools with kindness and allowing exploiters to run rings around the benefits system, the party has instead presided over the creation of a nanny state. Britain is indeed broken, but I sincerely believe that welfare reforms and benefits adjustments are absolutely crucial to repair the damage to our decaying nation.
I wasn't remotely surprised that those who browsed through my 'manifesto' replied that there were some ideas that met with their approval and other proposals that did not. This is precisely how I feel about their manifestos too. There are various bits in each party manifesto which are appealing to me and there are others which are considerably more unattractive to my beautiful mind. In a nutshell, I am a radical whose ideas transcend the apparent ideological differences on planet politics. If one were to observe my various blogs revealing the Greedy Bastards of Great Britain, it would be apparent to the lucky reader that I have leftist tendencies. However, I am ultimately a square peg, because I also possess ideas which belong further to the right of the political spectrum. For instance, I am appalled by Britain's nanny state and wholeheartedly endorse the Conservative Party's attempts to improve and reform the benefits system and the rotting welfare state. In fact, my strong feelings about the dependency culture is uppermost in my mind in terms of determining my voting preference at the next national beauty contest in 2015.
Well, various raspberries were blown by the usual suspects at the Conservative Party Conference's most recent welfare reform proposals. The Daily Mirror [a perpetual apologist for benefits exploiters and trade unions that have a grudge against the Conservatives], fronted by its jocular Geordie Mr Kevin Maguire mischievously suggested that the Conservatives' 'earn or learn' scheme in which innocent, little unemployed wretches could be condemned to spending every weekday at the local job centre was a return to the bad old days of the dreaded workhouse. A number of others from the Left as well as representatives of soft touch organisations were equally keen to scoff at the imminent reforms.
Perhaps this reveals the flawed nature of Brits (and others elsewhere) that we are frequently resistant to change. Could it be that most people are conservative in so far as many and indeed any proposed reforms from our political superiors are opposed because they represent upheaval and oblige folk to evacuate the complacency and safety of their comfort zones and embrace the great unknown of change. However, we all need to improve ourselves and our society, and progress can only be achieved via change. This represents the great conundrum of modern society in that change is something of a terrifying concept. Admittedly, there is a maxim that if it ain't broken then it don't need changed. Regrettably, mankind is damaged, and Britain (and elsewhere) is "broken", so the bitter pill of change has to be swallowed by a multitude of reluctant patients.
Anyhow, I have digressed somewhat. The thing is that when benefits reform is proposed, one can be pretty damn sure that the media will wheel out one or two hard luck cases whose lives will be totally undermined by amendments to the welfare state. I admit wholeheartedly that there are people whose lives are characterised by poverty which is not of their making. However, I do also contend that there are many more who benefit a little too well from benefits. I invite any leftist and liberal and naive soft touch personage to visit all the betting shops and public houses in their locality, wherein they will find a whole host of gents who are clearly not working and yet who are able to splash the cash. How can this be? Have they all taken an early retirement? Have they all won the National Lottery? Or could it be that they are some of the recipients of welfare which has enabled them, I repeat, to benefit a little too well from benefits.
I believe that it is increasingly erroneous to use the term "benefits" because there appears to be a plethora of folk who do indeed benefit a little too well from benefits. Perhaps it would be more apt to describe state aid in future as "assistance", provided that it does actually and exclusively assist the deserving poor, rather than fund the dubious lifestyle of the idle. Furthermore, it might well be worth visiting the local council estate to discover just how many houses of the apparent down-at-heel have television satellite dishes and good quality cars parked outside. It might be an eye-opener or at least an uncomfortable truth for the Guardian, the Daily Mirror and other apologists of welfare exploiters to discover precisely how many people are able to drive up and down their local roads, all day, every day, in good cars, funded by a regular supply of fuel, car insurance, and car tax. Can it be humanly possible that such people are impoverished and living on the breadline, or is it closer to reality to ascertain that there are many people who are taking the urine by exploiting the benefits system and laughing all the way to the bank.
Of course, what is most sickening of all is that there are numerous genuinely poor people working in horrible minimum wage jobs who are indeed struggling to cope and maintain any semblance of a quality of life whilst benefits exploiters are enjoying an idle lifestyle at the expense of hard-working and low-paid taxpayers. Why does the British welfare state reward the idle and penalise the hard-working, low-paid workers?
The trouble with the Labour Party is that they prize the welfare state to such an extent that they often refuse to entertain any benefit reforms. The party prides itself with having established the welfare state in the latter half of the turbulent 1940s, and therefore feels obliged to conserve [that word again] this flawed 'institution'. However, now that Labour has been killing the hospitals and schools with kindness and allowing exploiters to run rings around the benefits system, the party has instead presided over the creation of a nanny state. Britain is indeed broken, but I sincerely believe that welfare reforms and benefits adjustments are absolutely crucial to repair the damage to our decaying nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment