Wednesday, 1 October 2014
If you thought Miliband and his lefty cronies were desperately throwing out promises last week in order to get your vote in 2015, it seems that you ain't seen nothing yet - because the Tories have come out with something even more ridiculous.
If you're under 40 and a first time buyer, then Cameron is promising that you will be able to buy a new house at a 20% discount to market value. Even somebody as economically illiterate as Ed Balls failed to come up with that one.
Under the scheme, 100,000 houses would be built on so-called ‘brownfield’ land and the Government will relax taxes and planning rules to achieve the discount. Hands up anyone who believes that this isn't going to actually come out of our taxes!
Brownfield sites are land that has been built on before and which is normally reserved for commercial and industrial development. It's cheaper than greenfield sites and the government naively believes that the developers will pass the saving on to buyers. In addition, developers will be exempted from the need to include social housing on their developments and from requirements requiring environmental standards to be met.
Have I missed something? Wasn't the requirement to build social housing supposed to help the same people we're targeting now get on the housing ladder? So basically they are giving with one hand and taking back with the other and at the same time chucking their much vaunted environmental principals out of the window.
And how many of these wondrously cheap housing opportunities will be built? Well, apparently it's 100,000 - which, given the housing requirements already identified in the UK, is a bit like pissing into the ocean and then trying to measure the increase in sea level.
Cameron says that it's designed to help young people achieve the dream of home ownership that was championed under Margaret Thatcher. I think it's an attention grabbing headline and a publicity stunt that simply reeks of desperation to buy votes.
What's that rustling sound? Oh - it's Margaret Thatcher turning in her grave...
Tuesday, 30 September 2014
It's not news that Britain pays out about £30 million a year in child benefits to people across the EU who are not living in the UK but now it seems the Poles, Czechs and Slovakians are pissed off with us because we don't want to pay out unemployment benefit to people who aren't even in this country.
They're lodging a diplomatic protest because, just for once, IDS has gotten something right and told them to sod off!
An EU agreement means that citizens of one country who work in another are entitled to out-of-work benefits if they have paid national insurance for a certain period. In the UK the threshold is two years, but in other European countries it is as low as six months.
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘This Government does not pay benefits to someone in another country when they would not have been eligible for them in the UK. We are working with our counterparts across Europe on this issue.’
Well correct me if I am wrong, but if you're a UK national living in the UK then you only qualify for unemployment benefit if you are actively seeking work and are available to do that work, so in those circumstances can anyone explain to me how somebody living in Bratislava meets these criteria. If I was temporarily abroad in, say, Prague then I would lose benefit for the period I was out of the country. Surely if this applies to me, then it applies to everyone - but it would seem not.
Whilst the EU Commission has laid down rules by which these arrangements exists, the DWP quite rightly points out that they are not legally binding so the IDS is quite right in refusing to pay. So protest away and let's just see where it gets you!
It's another example of the EU milking this country for everything it can get and as far as I see it's yet another reason to quit at the earliest opportunity...
Monday, 29 September 2014
Say hello to 26 year old Christina Briggs from Wigan. Christina says that she hates being a dress size 26 but she can't afford to eat healthily or join a gym. She says she needs more money from the government in order to improve her health.
And in order to get more money, she sold her story to Closer magazine and got herself onto morning telly on Friday. I watched in absolute amazement as she told the world that the £20,000 a year she gets on benefits means she can't afford to buy decent food and that she really, really wants to lose weight as an example to her children. FFS!
She thinks that the government should sponsor her for £1 for every 1lb of weight she loses and give her vouchers for fresh fruit and veg.
"It's not easy being overweight and on benefits," she said. "If I was well off I'd be able to buy fresh food and afford a gym membership. I tried swimming but it cost £22-a-month and meant I had to cut back on my favourite pizza and Chinese takeways. It's not my fault. Healthy food is too expensive."
Sorry, luv, but it's a piece of piss being overweight and on benefits. You just sit on your arse, stuff your face and cash the giro.
The orange-haired, tattooed mum raises her two children, who have different dads, on her own and fears unless she gets help she may not live long enough to see them grow up. She said she cannot get a job because she needs to be at home to look after her youngsters one of whom has ADHD. So nothing to do with looking like a slob and having a bad attitude then?
Here's some of the reactions to her pleas on social media :
"Eat a bit less, love, that'll save you some money."
"Let's see...tattoos or veg? Tattoos or fresh fish?"
"Utter rubbish - she talks it and eats it! She doesn't work so has plenty of time to cook fresh healthy food from scratch. No excuses, just lazy selfish and greedy. Never have I heard such tosh."
"A takeaway for her and her children must be a minimum of a tenner and could range to £20. For £10 pounds I could feed myself 3 dinners and 2 lunches easily."
"There has been numerous times where I have wanted a takeaway, but guess what? Fruit and veg is cheap and good for you!"
"This woman is a lazy, cynical, overweight slob who blames everyone else but herself. As for exercising? Doesn't cost to walk or go for a jog around your area."
From personal experience I can assure you that the way to lose weight is very simple. Stop fucking shovelling food on your gob! It costs absolutely nothing. In fact, it saves you money...
Sunday, 28 September 2014
Saturday, 27 September 2014
So in the interests of Parliamentary Democracy, Cameron recalled the House on Friday to debate whether the UK should join the coalition that will bomb the shit out of IS in Iraq. I personally think it's the right decision. We tried appeasing Hitler in 1939 and look where that got us.
You can't negotiate or communicate in any meaningful way with Islamic State. The mindset is completely different. There is no common ground. It's like trying to hold a conversation with a crocodile. It just won't work. When the crocodile decides it's going to eat you, then you just need to kill the bastard before it kills you.
No, unpalatable as it might be, we have to get to grips with IS before they spread across the world and end up on the streets of London. These people don't just kill non-muslims, they even kill muslim who they consider to be the wrong sort of muslims. It's extermination just like the holocaust. Stop them now before they work down their list to us.
Having said all this, you might find the next bit somewhat surprising. I'm appalled that Parliament has behaved the way it did on Friday. All three party leaders agreed that their parties should vote in favour of joining in the air strikes and then applied arm twisting to make sure nobody stepped out of line. That's not democracy and it's especially unacceptable when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.
43 MPs voted against the motion. One such MP was Iain McKenzie who is an aide to the shadow defence secretary. Because he didn't tow the party line, his boss Vernon Coaker sacked him. Another was shadow education minister Rushanara Ali who resigned from the party's front bench because she could not back airstrikes.
The point I'm trying to make is that this should have been a free vote and that MPs should have been allowed to vote with their consciences free from the fear of losing their jobs if they defied the party whip. Have we learned nothing from the previous Iraq catastrophe and the resignation of Robin Cook?
Who else has been screwed by the whips to vote the way he is told? And was it really necessary anyway? Surely the House would have voted for action without any arm twisting.
This is not the way to run a democracy and it is certainly not the way to commit to taking the country to war. Shame on you.