The News In Shorts

How the news would look if everyone stopped waffling and told the truth.

Monday, 2 December 2013

What Can Britain Afford?

We can afford £50 or £60 billion to build a high speed railway so that the rich can get to Birmingham 20 minutes earlier, we can afford to subsidise the investments of MP's in the lucrative London property market, we can afford loopholes that bleed off billions in tax avoidance for the rich, we can afford tax cuts for the super-wealthy, we can afford to subsidise wind farms for wealthy landowners, we can afford to bail out criminal bankers and we can afford billions in foreign aid so that our politicians can swank about the world pretending to be important. But, as George Osborne explained today in full smug, self-satisfied mode, we can't afford the welfare state. When all the ideology and greedy self-interest is stripped out what Osborne said today in the Telegraph is that ordinary people count for nothing and the entire country should be run exclusively in the interests of people like George Osborne. This has come about, he forgot to mention, because the rich, smug and self-satisfied have all but wrecked the world economy to slake their insatiable greed. But greed is good and, therefore, there should be more of it not less. So it is the poor, the vulnerable, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed who must now pay the price for the neoliberal economic insanity and not the greedy, the self-interested and the criminal. It is the typical Tory message - in a time of famine the rich must be feed ever bigger meals on the basis that they will leave more crumbs for the rest of us. The truth is that what Britain can't afford are the bone idle wealthy scroungers who avoid paying tax like the plague and seem to believe that corruption is a viable political philosophy. What Britain can't afford is the Tory party.


  1. I agree, we live in a very sick society, one that has become noticeably sicker over the last 30 years, under both Labour and Conservative governments, I might add. The question is; is either party capable or motivated enough to change our society for the better. I personally don't believe that they are. Big problems need big solutions and voting in a new improved version of the culprits of our downfall is not big enough. Its time for a new party or a new institutional framework, but again unfortunately this generation just doesn't have the intelligence or the stomach for it any more.

    The other point to ponder is that is this done by some inept leaders or is the destruction of our living standards and the decimation of our culture done by design. You're a Marxist so I think you know the answer to that one. Their master plan is for the destruction of western civilisation and it's going perfectly so far. My prediction is this, all major world currencies will collapse in less that 3 years bringing down with it all independent sovereign nations, riots will ensue, millions will be killed and then a new saviour will be announced, a new world order backed by a single world currency controlled by a one world communist government. But like I said you probably know that because if you've studded Marx/Engels et. al. that's always been the plan.

  2. Er, I am no Marxist though you are quite right I have studies both. As far as I am concerned capitalism has won the economic argument. However, the people who are presently steering our economies are just as stupid as those who believe in the command economy. My viewpoint is that capitalism is a good idea when used for the benefit of all instead of the smug, greedy and utterly selfish few. Does that make me a Marxist? I seriously doubt it.