http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8065585/Middle-class-shakedown.html
I have never knowingly agreed with Peter Oborne in my life, but lately I often find myself more in agreement with the Telegraph than the Guardian. The Torygraph does not recognise "Cameroonianism" (Sigh, we really need to come up with a better label than that) as any form of Conservativism and are often more vitriolic in their opposition to the coalition than any on the shadow cabinet team.
As a leftie, I know I should shake my head in disgust at the article above, tut and snipe and rant that the "Squeezed Middle" can look after itself all the while the sick and poor and jobless are being punished and scapegoated, but I just can't.
What's more, I don't think it's a cheap shot at all to wonder whether Dave and Gideon's backgrounds can ever equip them in any way to do the job they are about to do. Why, lately, Cameron actually tried to tell us he is middle class - an old Etonian ex-Bullingdon club member related to the Queen who's wife is the daughter of a baronet really ought to give such assertions a very wide berth indeed. I am all too aware, that if you have lost your job, are facing repossession and have no savings, you might not have much compassion for 44k earners who are losing their child benefit and savings interest, but two wrongs don't make a right.
The scale and speed of these cuts is unnecessary and dangerous to the economy. Making sure everyone shares the pain seems to play well in the polls, but actually, no-one should be suffering pain on this level and no-one needs to be.
We all live to our means, very few of us have a few hundred quid rattling around at the end of the month. Those on higher incomes tend to spend more on childcare, more on mortgage costs (and therefore more in heating and lighting their homes) and more on transport/commuting. Losing three or four hundred pound a month won't be easy and may well push many mums into just giving up on their jobs altogether and staying home. It simply won't be worth going out to work. Surely this is the last thing Osborne wants?
Anyone who has read even one or two posts on this blog will know I am passionate about the poor and vulnerable and how they will be affected by these cuts. But it doesn't mean that I don't live in the real world - a world where most of the "middle class" (the real middle class not the Cameron version) are just as skint as the rest of us.
Morning Sue..........As a true Bluey I am compassionate and sympathetic, that is why I support the principle of the NHS, it should provide state of the art treatment for those in real need........Smokers, druggies, fatties, drunks, idiots on a Friday night, gender re-assigners, malingerers,etc. etc., IMO, do not qualify, and should, therefore, be charged for the service, thus enabling society to re-calibrate it's expectations of a great service, free at the point of need.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I watched QT last night, another basket case programme from the ever more predictable Beeb, the format is tired and boring and adds nothing to the political debate........get rid, along with the grossly overpaid managers.
Have a good day. :-) ( can't do smilies on here )
Ken - See this is why I got on with you and Roland. There are some justifications to true blue arguments. Trouble is Ken, if all those smokers and drunks were refused treatment, who would pay for the NHS at all? Just think of all the extra they pay in taxes on their tipples.
ReplyDeleteI do think we should subsidise fruit and veg though if we truly want to reduce the burden on the NHS and tax junk foods into oblivion.
As for QT, I used to feel just like you when there was a Labour government, funny though, now I like it better.... ;)
@Sue.....Hello. I don't think that anyone should be refused treatment, if they can afford to smoke and drink to excess they can afford to pay for treatment, goes with the territory...it seems fair to me, as a drinker, sometimes to excess, that I should pay extra for the consequences of my behaviour, in fact, when I'm pi**ed I chuck money around as though I'm Haille Selassie on a drive thru'., so I could hardly complain at an invoice from the NHS if I fell over a poor person.
ReplyDeleteYour QT comment was right on the money ! :-)
Sue......Just a thought...since our taxes aren't hypothecated, perhaps duty payers here are in fact paying for death and destruction in Tony and Gordon's illegal war abroad, a double whammy if ever I saw one. :-)
ReplyDeleteKen - Don't forget all those flippin' nurses and doctors and firemen and police officers, social workers, librarians, carers and bin men too!
ReplyDeleteWouldn't want our dam**d taxes wasted on such folly eh? :;
Sue........I support all the service categories, in fact I work voluntarily in Southwark with people who have barriers to employment, I see the waste and inefficiency caused by exploitation of what are supposed to social structures, by people who don't recognise the concept of responsibility, from vexacious litigation to flytipping........the whole gamut of anti-social behaviour...not just vandalism and drunkeness. There are so many drains on valuable resources, caused by selfishness, that the proper running of the services you mention is mitigated.
ReplyDeleteI happily pay taxes to support good quality services, I just hate to see them exploited.
Great comment Ken.
ReplyDeleteI was only teasing ;)
It's not beyond a Labour gal like me to see that there is massive waste and inefficiency in the health service and other public services.
I suspect that where we differ is on the issue of trying to tackle it.
In fact, I have a blog planned for exactly this issue, so keep reading
Hey Sue...........I think we are singing from the same song sheet. Do you recall Eric Morcambe being admonished by Andre Previn for playing 'all the wrong notes'on the piano ? Eric's retort was, " no, Mr Preview, I was playing all the 'right' notes, but not necessarily in the right order". Chuckle ! :-)
ReplyDeleteI often think reds and blues agree too.
ReplyDeleteNone of us like scroungers, fat unemployed wasters who spend all their time drinking and smoking and expecting the rest of us hard workers to subsidize them.
The only difference is we reds call them 'the rich'. ;)
Genius Julian, I really did lol
ReplyDelete@Julian....Hi Julian, unfortunately your stereotype doesn't match reality, obesity is a condition more likely to be associated with poverty than wealth. My daughter-in-law works in the bariatric unit at U.C.H and her patients are invariably from deprived backgrounds, it's counter intuitive, rich people tend to be thin.
ReplyDeleteKen.. are you serious? Well, we all pay for the national Health Service in our National Insurance and it should remain free at the point of need.
ReplyDeleteAstonished at the attitude that it should not be free for some who others are judgemental about lifestyles.
My mother in law suffered lung cancer, and who is to say she was not entitled to support from the NHS? In fact she starting smoking on the recommendation of a doctor to cope with stress when her first husband was killed in the war.
We know now that smoking kills, and it is right we should be educating, but who is to judge? Should I say no to those who drive fast cars, or to those who sit in sunshine and get skin cancer. There would be no end to this.
Of course we should all benefit from our National Health Service , we pay for it, and I am proud of it.
Ken, do remember smokers have already paid, by national insurance nad tobacco tax.
ReplyDeleteWhy tax again?#
And no, I don't smoke, gave up years ago.
@ Pam......Of course I'm serious,we are supposed to be evolving, risk is recognised and you make a conscious decision about the levels you run, I am judgemental about lifestyles, especially when they post a threat to others.
ReplyDeleteKen
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Let me rephrase....
None of us like scroungers, fat-cat unemployed wasters ......
But you should not deny them the right to NHS treatment which they have paid for.
ReplyDelete@Pam.........Sorry I meant,'pose a threat to others'.
ReplyDeletePam, Ken is a true blue but a little tongue in cheek too (a bit like Roland really, but Ken was naughtier)
ReplyDeleteHe's fun if you remember what a poor 'al droolin fella he is today ;)
Sorry, should have read "these days", not today
ReplyDelete@Julian........That's better ! :-)
ReplyDelete@Sue.........You've been reading my case notes again. :-)
ReplyDeleteWell initiatives on health do seem to work in the long term. There have been various agencies at work on this (as they were labelled and relabelled by successive Governments) but Scots 7 year olds are now the most active and least obese in the UK.
ReplyDeleteSo who were these agencies - quangos, staffed by professionals doing their job regardless of how they were labelled, and delivering for the people of Scotland.
Oldnat - Couldn't agree more. It simply strips away a layer of protection for the public that they need more than ever.
ReplyDeleteKEN said...
ReplyDeleteMorning Sue..........As a true Bluey I am compassionate and sympathetic, that is why I support the principle of the NHS, it should provide state of the art treatment for those in real need........Smokers, druggies, fatties, drunks, idiots on a Friday night, gender re-assigners, malingerers,etc. etc., IMO, do not qualify, and should, therefore, be charged for the service, thus enabling society to re-calibrate it's expectations of a great service, free at the point of need.
Anyway, I watched QT last night, another basket case programme from the ever more predictable Beeb, the format is tired and boring and adds nothing to the political debate........get rid, along with the grossly overpaid managers.
Have a good day. :-) ( can't do smilies on here )
__________________________
Ken taking your comments to the maximum do you realise ow close you are coming to actual fascism? This country fought against that once and now I find we are fighting it through comments that appear to have no basis in humanity, let alone sense. One other thing, I thought it was the blues that disapproved on the nanny state? Or is that just another load of pre-election guff that meant nothing to man nor beast?