Picture by Conservatives
It’s amazing the stuff people tell us we should be worried about. Take, if you will, The Deficit. This was a popular topic back in the days of Thatcher, who told us that running a country was like running a household budget: you must above all avoid debt. David Cameron, along with three of the four candidates running for the Labour leadership, talk the same sort of technicolour tripe. “Get The Deficit down!” they chant, as if it was an evil spirit. This, even though Britain has, with the odd year of exception, been running a budget deficit since the 1970s. And the US, with the exception of some ten years, has been running a deficit since 1940.
In one sense you can see their point of view. If you’re running a debt, you’re paying out a lot in interest. If you’ve had a mortgage – and most of us have – we’ll know how our stomachs turned over when we looked at how much more you were shelling out because of the interest. But here’s the thing: we accepted it, the way we accepted paying off a car, or a wedding, or a major holiday. Because we had lives to live.
Of course we didn’t have to have the car. Or the house. Or the wedding or holiday. We could have avoided all that interest by ‘living within our means’. No debts. No borrowing for anything. If we didn’t have the money there and then, it would be out. Do you fancy that option? Do you think many people do? I don’t. Most people spread the pain out over a considerable number of years and breathe a sigh of relief that they can live at a decent level. As with personal debt, The Deficit should be as small as possible, but not at the cost of an existence so threadbare, it’s indecent.
There are three sources that I know of who urge or act on this sensible spreading of deficit repayment. One is the Scottish government under Nicola Sturgeon. The second is Jeremy Corbyn. And the third is Sinn Féin and the SDLP. None of these are saying they want to close their eyes and wish the deficit away. They’re saying reduce the deficit, but not at the cost of bringing the weakest in our society to their knees.
Didn’t somebody say you can judge the level of civilisation in a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable members?
Very true Jude, it is not like anyone is going to foreclose on Britain because it is running a deficit. The deficit is used by the Tories as a bogeyman to scare the British public into accepting a low wage, part-time job economy whilst at the same time protecting the interests of their friends in the City.
I am sure very few of us are kept awake at night worrying about the deficit.
A couple of friends and myself were discussing this subject last weekend and one had a theory ( it seemed preposterous when first mooted ) that Unionism in their urge to punish “Fenians” any way possible would eagerly introduce austerity measures because they prejudicially believe that a majority of us are on benefits.The Conservatives behave in a similar fashion….they begin by using the compliant media to condition everybody to believe that all people on benefits are scroungers and thieves when in reality they themselves and their own friends in big business are the real culprits ( tax evasion or avoidance call it what you like, low wages and zero hour contracts etc ) They then ,citing book-balancing etc introduce measures that make the poorest in society pay for any shortfalls .This is then paraded as “we are all in this together” ……easy on £74,000 + an average of £30,00 expenses….£2000 pw .All is guff totally ignores the cost of the senseless never-ending wars that Britain seems to need , the £2.4 billion annually for a nuclear arsenal that that can never be used etc etc…… what a load of s***e
“A couple of friends and myself were discussing this subject last weekend and one had a theory ( it seemed preposterous when first mooted ) that Unionism in their urge to punish “Fenians” any way possible would eagerly introduce austerity measures because they prejudicially believe that a majority of us are on benefits.”
Its not preposterous at all Seamus. That’s been my belief behind Unionisms eagerness to implement austerity from the beginning. I think we all know by now Unionism is definitely in cahoots with the Conservatives to make sure Welfare reform is implemented here, the DUP was invited to dinner in Downing Street by David Cameron himself a while back. Was it a coincidence that the tories stood aside in Fermanagh/South Tyrone and North Belfast in the General Election in May just when Unionism wanted a free run? I think not. It was all part of a DUP/UUP/Conservative pact to give Unionism the best chance of taking/holding those seats. Now Unionism is holding to their side of the bargain by championing austerity here. This shows the mentality behind the Conservatives that they are certainly not neutral to politics here but I think all Nationalists learnt that a long time ago.
My logic concerning Unionism (when I say Unionism I’m referring mostly to political Unionism, not all Unionists and certainly not all Protestants) is that you have to study their actions in history to understand their mind set. We know in Unionist Stormont they lead a sectarian and discriminatory Government whose agenda was to force Catholics out, whether through economic emigration or through violence. This was partly successful, there would’ve been a Catholic majority here in the 6 counties a long time ago if it were not to be for emigration and we know the majority of people leaving here searching for work were Catholics and discrimination from Unionism played a big part in this. Thousands of Catholic families were forced to flee across the border when Loyalist mobs, helped and aided by B Specials and the RUC, went on campaigns of ethnic cleansing. The Republic even had to set up camps along the border to help the fleeing Catholics. I could go on but I’m sure many reading this will not need a history lesson.
Now would I be surprised if Unionism today wanted to punish Catholics, under the prejudice that mostly Catholics are on welfare, in order to make life harder for them? to maybe cause more to emigrate to find jobs in other countries? No, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest. Its hard enough not being able to find a decent job here, what would it be like having your benefits cut? I know I’d want to emigrate if I was in that situation. If I remember correctly it was Peter Robinson and Ian Paisley who told American companies not to invest here in the 1980s. Why? Why would they do that? Was it because American companies would hire Catholics? I’m inclined to think that’s the case and so are others, that’s why it was in the news a few months ago, i’ll leave a link below. This is the way political Unionism works. Will it ever change? I don’t know.
But the main reason why I think Unionism is championing austerity is because they know it will damage Sinn Fein’s voter base if implemented. How? because they reckon that many SF voters will see that SF failed to protect them and will lend their vote to other socialist, left wing parties, the obvious one being People Before Profit and as we have seen Gerry Carroll even got more votes than the SDLP in West Belfast in May’s General Election. What better way to help Unionism than splitting the left wing, nationalist vote?….
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-news/peter-robinson-urged-us-firms-not-to-invest-in-northern-ireland-says-declassified-file-1-6493918
it seemed preposterous when first mooted
Because it is!
Just a quick question should a family were both parents go out to work receive less money than a family were both parents are on benefits yes or no Seamus?
Let me answer for him, neill – No. Both working parents should receive a living wage – I agree, it’s totally unjust.
Neill, you seem to be of the mind that those people on benefits are the cause of families who work receiving less money than they should. You shouldn’t be harking on about people on benefits, you should turn your attention to employers, especially big business, who don’t pay a decent wage. This Victorian age mentality that you seem to harbour towards people on benefits is just as sickening and unjust as your view on Cromwell committing genocide against Catholic men, women and children.
The fact is Neill the vast majority on welfare in the UK are pensioners (do you suggest cutting or scrapping their pension just so some Tory supporter will get a tax cut so he can buy a bigger yacht in the South of France?) then there’s working, I repeat WORKING, families who get benefits to supplement their wages because their employers don’t pay them well. Then finally, I believe around 10-15% of welfare is paid to people on JSA/Sickness benefits/etc
Do you regard people who have lost their jobs, made redundant, etc at no fault of their own as “scroungers”? Yes, there are people who don’t want to work, who do take advantage, etc but they are a tiny minority and even though they are wrong in not wanting to work, they are NOT responsible for the Trillions in debt that the UK is in. The blame for that lies firmly with bankers who STILL receive million pound bonuses and salaries. And no Neill, those who caused the Global economic crisis are not “productive” members of society, as you once put it.
This Victorian age mentality that you seem to harbour towards people on benefits is just as sickening and unjust as your view on Cromwell committing genocide against Catholic men, women and children
Very much like your attitude towards Republican violence.
The fact is Neill the vast majority on welfare in the UK are pensioners (do you suggest cutting or scrapping their pension just so some Tory supporter will get a tax cut so he can buy a bigger yacht in the South of France?) then there’s working, I repeat WORKING, families who get benefits to supplement their wages because their employers don’t pay them well. Then finally, I believe around 10-15% of welfare is paid to people on JSA/Sickness benefits/etc
Do you regard people who have lost their jobs, made redundant, etc at no fault of their own as “scroungers”? Yes, there are people who don’t want to work, who do take advantage, etc but they are a tiny minority and even though they are wrong in not wanting to work, they are NOT responsible for the Trillions in debt that the UK is in. The blame for that lies firmly with bankers who STILL receive million pound bonuses and salaries. And no Neill, those who caused the Global economic crisis are not “productive” members of society, as you once put it.
You bore me to be honest get on with your work and stop stealing your companies time.
They will do next Easter Jude.
You will no doubt be devastated to learn, Esteemed Blogmeister, that not everybody would share your high opinion of Jeremy Corbyn.
Take Pat Rabbitte, soon to be ex-TD, for instance. (Do, please do). In an interview today with that noted left wing organ, The Unionist Times, the carrot-chomping cottontail warned that the British Labour Party would be making ‘a big mistake’ if it elected Mr. Corbyn as its leader.
The versatile retiring Rabbit was in his Bugs Bunny persona for this particular pronouncement but instead of wielding his trademark carrot was seen to brandish a mountaineering ice pick in his right wing hand. This was a particularly apt choice of prop as tomorrow marks the 75th anniversary of the Assassination of Leon Trotsky in Mexico’s fair city where las muchachas are so linda.
-I am not a fan of Corbyn’s politics.
Whack !
-And I never have been.
Whack ! Whack !
-He is essentially Trotskyist in his disposition.
Whack ! Whack ! Whack !
By which time the front runner for the top job in British Labour (whose wife curiously enough is a native of Mexico) is slumped over his study desk, helpless with laughter. Such is the dread that the globally-acclaimed Bugs Bunny, TD, instills in the souls of the Socialist International.
Having forcefully made the point that Irish Labour Party members should not attempt to influence their British counterparts during the campaign (‘I don’t think its our job’) Bugs B., TD, then logically disregards his own solemn advice.
-In Corbyn’s case he is a supporter of Militant.
And if there’s one thing Bugs B. cannot countenance it is the Militant Tendency of his ‘counterparts’ in the British Labourt Party.This is the same party incidentally which, just over two months after coming into power in 1974 did a Magnus Magnusson of sorts and masterminded the biggest bomb-based slaughter of the Thirty Years Dirty War.
The buzzer which consisted of four beeps first sounded in Dublin and then with the celebrated catchphrase ‘We’ve started so we’ll finish’ moved on to Monaghan. Before returning to the Glenanne Farm Centre of Peace Studies, knackered but content.
B.B., who was going through his White Rabbit phase at that stage, was loud in his condemnation of the Militant Tendency of the British Labourt proles of that era. This condemnatory phase endured till he left the alician fields which consisted of the wonderland of the Workers’ Party and morphed into the Brer Rabbit mode of his Democratic Left days.
By the time he had eventually sloughed off his two (at least) previous political costumes the cartoon figure and former Boss Stick with the 18 carat wit had donned the pantomime costume of the Irish Labour Party leader: Bugs Bunny, TD.
In a yet to be published autobiography, he writes:
-And sometimes I chomp on my carrot for the same reason a stand-up comic chomps on his cigar. It saves me from rushing from the last joke to the next one too fast. And sometimes i don’t act, I react.
The most hilarious joke of his in recent years was,by general consent, the one he cracked with reference to the making of flippant promises during a canvas
-Isn’t that what you do during elections?
When this caused a furore (of sorts) among the purchased press, B. Bunny,TD and Minister of Communications defused the hooh-hah with his comical catchphrase:
-What’s up, Doc?
And in another extract (to be serialised in the Righteous Wing Sindo, the Sabbath day organ of his lord and master to be, DOB) from his haughtybiography:
-And I always treat the contest with my pursuers as ‘fun and games’.When momentarily I appear to be cornered or in dire danger and I scream, don’t be consoined – it’s all a big put-on. Let’s face it, Doc, I’ve read the script and I always know how it turns out’.
Be consoined, Jeremy Corbyn, be very consoined.
–
Jewel of the day: Be consoined, Jeremy Corbyn, be very consoined.” Perkin, you are in danger of becoming a national treasure…Although then again, what is my nation??
What is thy nation, Esteemed Blogmeister?
Treasure Island, perchance?
-As I was waiting, a man came out of a side room, and at a glance I was sure he must be Long J.C. His left leg was cut off close by the hip, and under his left shoulder he carried a crutch, which he managed with wonderful dexterity, hopping about upon it, like a bird. He was very tall and strong, with a face as big as a ham – plain and pale but intelligent and smiling. Indeed, he seemed in the most cheerful spirits, whistling as he moved among the tables, with a,merry word or a slap on the shoulder for the most favoured of his guests’.
Yis, matey, definitely Treasure Island.
These deficits I’d suggest are a revenue problem, not an expenditure one. Certainly in North America, the last 25 to 30 years has been an era in which the mantra has been to reduce taxes: put money in peoples’ pockets, eliminate “waste”, get government out of the way, help the economy etc. The taxes actually collected have also changed in character, with less on corporations, reductions in the top personal tax rates, and a shift to consumption taxes (VAT) which place a bigger relative burden on the poorest, thereby reducing the progressivity in the tax system. Despite all the wealth created in this period and the environmental price paid, the outcome has been a greater than ever (if not obscene) disparity between the haves and have-nots. And we hear repeated alarms about deteriorating public infrastructure and the threat that poses for the economy and living standards. A change in tact is required. Interestingly studies in the past have shown that high tax countries, Scandinavia for example, have been more successful in achieving their social objectives; and it looks like they have done it without economic penalty. Going forward maybe we need to envision a global tax solution, designed to eliminate tax completion, address the already recognizable deficiencies and prepare us for another great challenge, climate change.
Neill ,I never said or implied that benefits should be more than a couples wages…..but the problem is miniscule ,meagre pittance wages and zero hour contracts.Benefits are basically the minimum ,set by government ,that people need to survive on. If wages are below that then the problem is the greed of the employers and also remember ,Neill , that the minimum wage set by government is automatically taken by employers to mean the maximum they have to pay ! Thatcher started this rot years ago when she systematically set out to destroy the unions and thereby keep the workers on the lowest wage possible with no rights or comeback