Actually, it's the Labour Government!
In fact, this is not exactly news to those of us on the inside of UK politics, as one of my former ward colleagues never tires of reminding me: Labour are always dependent upon keeping poor people "poor" and in their back pockets through welfare dependency. That's largely how their MPs are voted into office.
I am grateful to our local Quiet Man from around these parts, for pointing me in the direction of one source or contemporary information that shows this. Unfortunately both that source and the linked/quoted section are non "family friendly", so I shan't link to them (because of my aim that this site should be usable as a resource by all ages) but instead will quote some statistics and reproduce a chart. In fact, the source is the Mail Online, so I can link to that in case anyone reading this wishes to check.
The main statistic is that, of the top 200 parliamentary constituencies in terms of benefits dependancy, 189 of them have a Labour MP, including Gordon Brown and a dozen of his Cabinet colleagues. This chart extract (I have the whole table on file, for reference purposes) shows the top five, of which four have a Labour MP and the fifth SNP…
Again, there is no surprise news here to those of us in the know; but I wonder how many of the public-at-large realise that the situation has been deliberately manufactured, nurtured and fine-tuned to maintain Labour's hold over those 189 (and probably more) areas? I notice that far Lefty Eric Heffer's old constituency of Liverpool Walton is in the Number One spot in the league table, by the way.For Labour, there is no incentive to tackle this sub-culture, only headline-garnering token initiatives that the history of the last twelve years shows beyond doubt have had zero impact. Instead the situation has worsened — all so that Labour can in effect blackmail millions of people to vote for them, or at the least not vote for anyone else. it costs us all, between us, a sixth of a trillion Pounds every year, and this bill is set to rise still further.
If this amount were to be just halved, we could solve most if not all of the country's public spending woes. In a sense, this could be said to be the single biggest barrier to our nation's economic recovery.
Now there's a thought!
Comments
4 Responses to “State Dependency”
Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment |
Whoever signed off nearly 20% of Rhonndas workforce as " disabled " has a lot to answer for.
9 November 2009 at 04:39The initial plan when putting the rump working class on the sick was to save movey by not having to pretend to retrain them; they would just die off and thus cease to be a drain on the public purse. The plan backfired because instead of dying off they breeded and their offspring regard going from congenitally unemployable to 'disabled' as their major career move.
I can understand the old miners having a high degree of disability, emphasemia and other industry related diseases but their wastrell offspring have never worked so what diseases do they have , oh yes, Stress !
A lot of those miners still are on Incap due to 'psychological problems' following their suicidal strike intended to bring Mrs. Thatcher's Tory government down. At the time, the government allowed the rules to grow so that such people stayed off the unemployment figures - voters used to think that it was government's job to get those figures down in those days. They're a bit more realistic today.
9 November 2009 at 08:06One of the few policy areas that Mister Cameron's quisling Tory regime will still be allowed to frame without running to his UE masters next year is welfare spending. All he has to do is add a few amending lines of wording to a number of benefits and tax credits legislation to the effect that Child Benefit, Tax credits, Council Tax and Housing benefits and the allowances that derive from children will henceforth cease after the second child. You want three kids? Go ahead, but not from the taxpayer's pocket. Watch the unmarried mothers of Britain discover how to use contraception in short order.
He might want to add a time limit for starting a family and being re-entitled to more child-related benefits, such as ten years.Thus, if a girl has her first child at 16, she'll have to bear her second one by 26 if she wants taxpayer's help for its little brother or sister. Then watch breeding on the dole end in a single generation.
Of course, Cameron's Leftie Tories probably won't let him do any such thing because it would be 'cruel,' and anyway, he might be wanting to do the handful of things that a British local administration is permitted to do, such as tinkering with tax allowances for businesses in the complex and absurd scheme the Conservatives are presently offering, or signing off the new design for postage stamps.
Notice how smoothly this policy fits in with the topic your previous post: manipulate the population so as to create a larger client base, thus ensuring permanent hegemony.
9 November 2009 at 15:21Indeed, didn't Gramsci invent the phrase 'Cultural Hegemony'?
No punishment is sufficient for these ********.
My thanks to all commenters, each contribution adding something to this topic and its history for the record here.
10 November 2009 at 11:22I agree with Dave H, and was (when I wrote this) conscious of the "different pieces of the same puzzle" nature of this post and the previous one.
Indeed, it is in seeing the larger picture take shape that we can now realise just what all the past twelve years' government has really been about. It was all a con, but well camouflaged in many cases.
Post a Comment