Lord Freud And The Bone Idle

Lord Freud, like all Tories, doesn't like idle scroungers. "We cannot have people loafing about, doing nothing and expecting the state to finance their lifestyles," he has said. "Poor people should take more risk," he has suggested. "After all, they don't have a manor house to lose like I do." Of course it's easy to make such observations when you are a privately-educated ex-banker who inherited your money and has never done a real day's work in your life. People like Freud are born into a privileged background, sent to the best schools, handed lucrative careers on a plate because of their family connections, promoted into positions of little responsibility and large pay packets, ushered into the House of Lords where they can claim £300 per day in expenses whether they manage to remain awake or not and then allowed to pontificate about ordinary people's lives from a position of utter and profound ignorance. Disabled people, he now tells us, should be "helped into work" by undermining the principle of the minimum wage or, as the rest of us would understand it, a seemingly attractive and very thin edge of an extremely large and very thick wedge. Lord Freud, like all Tories, has to wrap up his most insidious and outrageous ideas in cosy blanket of misdirection and weasel words. He doesn't dare say in forthright terms what is really on his mind. "How can I make the poor even poorer so I can have a nice fat juicy tax cut?" "How can I, who's never done a real day's work in my life while the state finances my lifestyle, continue to loaf about the House of Lords on £300 per day without anyone noticing?" "Who's poor and meagre possessions can I put at risk so my manor house remains nice and safe?" Fortunately sooner or later all Tories trip over their own tongue simply because they can't resist wagging it about while lecturing the rest of us. Sooner or later they all trip over their own feet as they stampede towards the feeding trough. When such accidents occur it gives us all the opportunity to see what they really are. We have no excuse if we ignore these little slip ups and no one else to blame if we keep voting for this vicious, small-minded, greedy and selfish scum.

What Came First? The Tory Party Or Wealthy Freeloaders?

Lord Freud, yet another smug, self-satisfied Tory scrounger, has suggested that there is no connection between people being deliberately starved by the Tory party and the proliferation in the number of food banks. According to this dedicated freeloader on the public purse the number of food banks is increasing because the feckless working-class have an unlimited demand for free food. “It is difficult to know which came first," he told the House of Lords "supply or demand.” In other words he chooses to believe that poor people are claiming free food simply because food banks exist. The corollary would be that, if the food banks were closed, then the demand for free food would fall and that all this has nothing to do with poor people not having enough to eat. Lord Freud, having spent many years working as an investment banker - in other words in organised crime - was appointed in 2006 by the best leader the Tory party ever had, Tony Blair, to provide an "independent" review of the welfare system. In 2008 he primly told us; "We cannot have people simply loafing about, doing nothing and expecting the state to finance their lifestyles". Then, in 2009, he accepted a life peerage from the Tory party after joining their ranks officially, and suddenly expected that we, the taxpayers, would finance his lifestyle while he loafed about in the House of Lords and avoided paying tax on the money he steals from us. The real question that he should be asking is "What came first? The Tory party or wealthy freeloaders?"

Proit-Making Catering In Parliament Fails To Deliver Good Service.

Peers of the Realm are besides themselves with rage over the standard of the subsidised food available to them in the restaurants at the Houses of Parliament. Pork steaks are reported to be tough, chips are not arranged in a pleasing pyramid shape and there is a definite shortage of Chilean wines available it would seem. And yet the restaurants are actually profit-making and, as neoliberal economic dogma assures us, should be both ultra-efficient and deliver a service second-to-none. That they don't simply shows us what ideology is - the world as a self-serving elite would like it to be instead of how it actually is. But all this rather begs the question as how this serves the taxpayer who is actually footing the bill? If the restaurants are "profit-making" who gets the profit? The suggestion is that making a profit provides "value for money" to the taxpayer. How exactly? Are we expected to believe that the taxpayer is charging himself higher prices in the restaurants so he can get some of his taxes back? Is so, why bother? Why not charge lower prices, forego a profit and pay less in terms of the subsidy in the first place. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark and its not just the pork steaks.

Lord Bichard Calls For Exploitation Of OAP's

Lord Bichard, another Tory peer who has never done a real days work in his life, has called for old age pensioners to be forced into unpaid work so that he and his rich mates can have yet another tax cut. Having spent a lifetime in the Civil Service and avoiding a real job, Lord Bichard was rewarded by his fellow state scroungers with a seat in the House of Lords and a gong to impress his mates at his London club. Pensioners should be made to look after even older pensioners, the smug, self-satisfied benefit scrounger suggested, so that the government could divest itself of the responsibility and reward itself for doing nothing whatsoever. "Are there ways in which we could use incentives to encourage older people, if not to be in full time work, to be making a contribution?," he asked a parliamentary committee investigating a way to make themselves even richer than they are now. The answer, of course, is that there are certain sections of our society who are freeloading off the rest of us and who have no intention of contributing to our society. Unfortunately many of them are politicians and far, far too many of them sit in the House of Lords. The "News in Shorts" would like to propose a scheme whereby Peers should be given a low-visibility donkey jacket, a shovel and a bucket of tar and sent wandering up the M1 at night to fill in potholes. Now that would be an efficient use of resources.

Baroness Warsi On The Fiddle.

Baroness Warsi has today joined the ever-growing number of MP's and Peers who have "inadvertently" fiddled their expenses. She neglected to inform the register of Lords' interests that she had moved out of one of her many London properties and was renting it out. "I take full responsibility for this rather lucrative oversight on my part and I informed the register of Lords' interests just as soon as they had already found out about it. This is completely understandable if you take into consideration that I am rather forgetful and confused when it suits me. I am not dishonest, I am a Tory." The House of Lords has issued a statement that no action will be taken against her. As a spokesperson for the Upper Chamber told our reporter; "Like any citizen who makes an honest mistake on, lets say, their income tax return, we take a relaxed view and feel that fair play should take precedence over the law - unless of course you happen to be unemployed, crippled or sick."