When Greggs runs the economy

Today’s special offer – 2 cuntish ideas for the price of one!

Carrying on from last night’s entry – uploaded via my iPhone whilst luxuriating in black satin sheets and fed grapes and Ovaltine by voluptuous serving wenches – a few thoughts on who might have some effective solutions to many of our current problems.

Taking the ‘alcohol problem’, which seems to be rapidly becoming a fucking obsession with the BMA and other government bum monkeys, it struck me that no-one apart from Libertarian bloggers seems to see this manufactured social ‘blight’ for what it really is – an excuse to not just simply further erode our personal freedoms, but to start beating the living shit out of them to ensure a speedy demise.

I refer readers to some excellent blog entries over at Devil’s Kitchen and Dick Puddlecote that deal with this matter – both coming from a Libertarian point of view.

If you want to know what Tory and Labour bloggers think, then tough shit – no-one seems too concerned.

So, why should we really give a flying fuck about them?

Turning to another matter which never seems to leave the headlines – the perilous and extremely shitty state of the global economy – both the Tories and Labour announced ‘proposals’ yesterday.

(I have no idea what the LibDems had to say – nothing apparently. They’re probably still trying to find the toilets at Westminster.)

Call me Dave set out his car boot sale stall with some frankly very resistable items.

David Cameron has pledged to end MPs’ subsidised alcohol and food and reduce ministerial salaries if the Tories win power at the next election.

He also said the number of MPs and ministerial cars would be cut.

The Tory leader said it would amount to only a “pinprick” in overall savings needed – but politicians had to take a lead in bearing the “burden” of debt.

He also said government spending should be cut immediately, calling Labour’s plans for next year “unaffordable”.

What a tease, eh?

He had some really cheap stuff laid out but kept back the really good gear.

Why, one might almost have to wonder whether he had any other suggestions beyond the ‘pinprick’ he detailed.

Although there was this, just casually dropped into the speech.

government spending should be cut immediately

Where?

How?

And, Dave, you cockbiscuit, cutting the number of MPs by 10% isn’t enough.

50% and you might be onto something.

Incidentally, did anyone else notice that our Dave’s starting to add a few more glottal stops and ‘gonnas’ into his speeches?

He seems to have gone all Eastenders on us…

Meanwhile, in his new show at the Cardiff Fringe Festival, Alistair ‘How the fuck have I been able to keep this kushy overpaid job when I’m such a useless streak of twatbatter?’ Darling seemed to think that we could economise our way out of the shit though efficiency savings and shifting resources around like chairs in a secondhand shop.

“What I want to see is a serious debate in this country as to where we need to spend our money, where we need to set our priorities which will define us, as a country, which will provide will provide people with jobs and opportunities for the next five or 10 years.

“That is a very important discussion to have. There will come a time when you have to spell out ‘well, this is what we’re doing, this is what we’re not doing’.

I could have cut and pasted more, but it doesn’t actually mean a fucking thing – any of it.

And, I don’t know about you, but after about two sentences from the cunt, I get to the stage where my eyes glaze over and I lose the will to live.

Or I become enraged and then seized with a burning desire to shove a red-hot spoon up my rectum.

Because, if someone’s going to cause me that much grief, I want that person to be me.

(The LibDems?…oh, them?…still looking for the Commons shithouse…)

When you reduce the current financial crisis to its effect on people going about their day to day business, thinking about things like how much money they’re left with after tax, how much of the sum remaining is going to get taken away in further taxes and what all that tax is spent on, then no-one from the major parties seems to be offering much hope.

Which is where Libertarianism comes in.

Yes, I acknowledge that within the movement there’s a very wide range of approaches to sorting out government and personal finance, but surely, when the usual suspects seem to be offering nothing that is in anyway new or radical, a different approach is at least worth exploring?

The Libertarian Party (LPUK) manifesto’s first point on the Economy is this:

Personal Income Tax to be abolished in second financial year of a Libertarian government.

If you follow the link in the quote, it explains the proposal further and details a way out of the demoralising and stifling cluster fuck of continual tax hikes and increasing welfare dependency.

Isn’t that worth at least considering?

Or do we want the same old tired ideas trotted out as we sink deeper and deeper into personal and national debt?

Perhaps if we avoided the poverty of ideas that were set out yesterday, like so many unappetising half-baked sausage rolls in a Greggs window display, then perhaps we could avoid poverty itself.

Not my ‘Digital Champion’

Where do you fucking start?

Well, here or here might be a good place.

Olympic aim to get Britons online

Speaking to BBC Business Editor Robert Peston, Ms Lane Fox said she wanted a “virtual race” to coincide with preparations for the 2012 Olympics.

As the government’s new Digital Champion she has been charged with getting millions online who are not yet connected to the internet.

The race is on to get as many British people online as possible by 2012, Martha Lane Fox has told the BBC.

So, Martha Lane Fox is our ‘Digital Champion’.

Digital Champion?

Who the fuck thinks these ‘job’ titles up?

Yet another focus group of drones paid for by the taxpayer at the behest of some Nu Labour cunt of a politician who doesn’t understand that this country is fucked economically speaking, I’d imagine.

It’s adding insult to the injury already announced that those of us with fixed phone lines will have to pay a levy of 50p a month to fund nationwide broadband internet access.

But, more significantly and inevitably, the devil is in the detail here:

Some 17 million Britons are currently not online, either out of choice or because they cannot afford internet connectivity.

Ms Lane Fox has indicated that she wants to concentrate on the six million poorest “nonliners” first.

For starters let’s just forget about those 11 million who couldn’t give a fuck about the internet and just hope that access isn’t made compulsory by this ‘inclusive’ government.

It’s that six million “nonliners” that worries me.

(“Nonliners”…give me a motherfucking break you soundbitten cuntwafts…)

These would presumably be the same six million that the taxpayer is supporting.

Now, don’t get me wrong here; I don’t wish to see anyone starve, be homeless or lack the other basic human comforts, but that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to fund luxuries for people.

I also have no wish to condemn anyone who’s been buttfucked out of a job and onto the breadline by this sorry bunch of tractor-counting cuntsocks that we call a government.

But…

Internet access is a luxury.

Ms Lane Fox doesn’t think so, however.

But she’s wrong – not to mention intellectually-challenged.

Those on the wrong side of the digital divide were disadvantaged in many ways, said Ms Lane Fox. Studies showed, she said, that those familiar with the web earned more, performed better in job interviews, could save money by shopping online and had an easy route to keeping their skills fresh.

Among those 17 million Britons not online was a group of six million who were “the most socially and economically disadvantaged people we have in this country”, she said.

“We are really going to focus, I hope, on the six million that are at the bottom of the pile. Partly because that’s the right thing to do and partly because we know quite a lot about these people – who they are and where they live.

“I am sure we can put our arms around the problem,” she said.

(Slight pause whilst I vomit due to that last sentence)

Studies showed, she said, that those familiar with the web earned more

What studies? And maybe because they earn more they can afford broadband and thus be more familiar with it.

performed better in job interviews

Er…how does that work then?

could save money by shopping online

You need a debit or credit card to shop online. Possession of such a card hinges on some assessment of credit worthiness. This is something that the poor do not have very much of.

And why is it

the right thing to do (?)

We already have a section of society that is welfare-dependent and  that I’m helping to support. Why should I be expected to fund a luxury for them? Why is it always right to give to those who give nothing in return?

Let’s get this straight…

I’m expected to fund broadband access (something I pay for myself already and am also taxed on via VAT) for people I’m already helping to support?

Where’s the fairness in that?

Yes, it would be great if everyone who wanted it had broadband access, but where do you draw the line?

If we’re going to fund luxuries then why not go the whole cunting hog and give this 6 million what everyone else pays for out of their own pocket?

I’m sorry, but if we give internet access to that section of the ‘poor’ who are benefit-dependent by choice then we’re going to be subsidising a fair few people whacking off to internet porn or watching YouTube videos of what happens when you microwave a frog.

Both very laudable things to do if they can afford it.

If they can’t then why the fuck should I pay them to do it?

Along with buying their cans of Stella and fucking Lotto scratch cards.

You want all this stuff?

Well fucking pay for it yourselves.

As the Devil would say – fucking hellski…

PS

Many libraries offer free internet access and membership is free.

These places also contain things called ‘books’ which more people ought to read. Maybe being literate might have more to do with getting a better job than whether you have broadband or not.

Just a thought…

MPs’ expenses – a 10 point plan to ensure *real* justice is done

I) All 646 MPs shall be investigated, using all available data regarding expense claims – whether paid by the Fees Office or otherwise.

II) Their accounts and claims shall be examined by independent auditors.

III) Any irregularities shall be reported to the Police, HMRC and other relevant authorities.

IV) If applicable, all resulting enquiries shall be pursued to the full extent of applicable laws, regulations and guidelines.

V) All MPs wishing to stand in the next General Election must first be cleared of any wrongdoing that has run contrary to existing laws, regulations and guidelines.

VI) Any MP who has been found to benefit financially or materially from having broken any applicable laws, regulations and guidelines must repay all relevant monies, or an equivalent amount as claimed for, in the case of material goods, taxes due on them and also interest on these sums – both gains and unpaid taxes – as per late payment interest rates set down by HMRC.

VII) If necessary, goods and chattels may be seized to pay any outstanding repayments, fines and unpaid taxes. If the proceeds from these do not cover any outstanding sums, then money may be taken from the pension fund due to the individual.

VIII) Any MP who has broken any laws regarding expenses will be barred for life from taking up any public office or any position of financial responsibilty in the private or charitable sector.

IX) Any MP found to have behaved contrary to applicable laws, regulations and guidelines shall receive no resettlement allowance.

X) Any individual found to have colluded in the misappropriation of expenses will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

£50?

That’s a bargain!

How come public services are costing me several thousand quid in taxes and community charge every fucking year?