- v. Fail to tackle the important jobs.
So the government is trailing its plans to get tough on those claiming incapacity benefit. The BBc dutifully falls into line, running TV shows revealing the ease with which the 'system can be fiddled', or phone-ins allowing the 'general public' to ring in and berate the workshy, because their grandad, right, smoked 30 packs of woodbines a day, and lost both legs down t'pit. But he didn't riot, right, he got on his bike and looked for work. The odious and otiose Nicky campbell used to have a trailer for his phone-in on Radio 5 that had a tagline "Where the Nation Speaks its Mind". My inevitable adjunct to that was "Well, shouldn't take long".
We're led to believe, by the compliant MSM, that the scheme costs £12 billion per year. Fantastic, I like the thought that I live in a country where those who are unable to work - maybe they inhaled asbestos in their place of work, maybe they had an accident working at the docks - are given some support. I've lived on benefits, I know it's no bloody life of luxury. Even if we don't question the whole system our society is built on, for me this is money well spent.
But let's ask why the disabled are suddenly being singled out for attack? According to that bbc story, 1.8 million people currently claim incapacity benefit. Assuming they are pretty evenly spread throughout the country, that's unlikely to be a significant group of voters in any one constituency. A soft target, then. Mind you, the Mail reckons it's 2.7 million. The government can thus safely announce another series of tough measures to appease the populist press. Ah yes, the press. One of the biggest publishers of daily newspapers in this country is News International, which publishes among others the Sunt and The Times. News International, famously, pays no corporate tax in the UK. According to this 1999 article in the Economist, in the eleven years prior to 1999, News International paid no tax on £1.4 billion profits. Granted, som of this was written off against costs incurred in the merger with BSB, yet
B Sky B accounts for only that £317m, leaving around £1.1 billion in other profits. Mr Murdoch might normally have been expected to pay around £350m in tax on this. To put that in perspective, such a sum could build seven new hospitals, 50 secondary schools or 300 primary schools.But even rival media outlets keep pretty schtum about this. Surely they don't have a vested interest in the tax affairs of media companies not being too closely investigated?
And even that ignores the fact that "our" glorious, free, democratic capitalist system relies on a large pool of unemployed people in order to keep wages low. If there is not enough competition for jobs, then the uppity workers will demand higher wages, and then how will Mr Murdoch and his ilk afford all those highly-paid tax consultants? At least have the decency not to take the piss out of those hapless, jobless souls who help underpin the capitalist state.
Oh, and don't mention the war.
Ignore this, it's just a tag: incapacity benefit
It's all a load of bollocks, so bollocks to it all!