Skip to main content

Boris' alternative speech to the CBI



Boris' alternative speech to the CBI:

Look, I know you will understand we have to bribe voters with more spending on all the essential services about which pollsters tell us they care. So, for now (wink, wink) until we get reelected (wink), we are going to shelve the cut in business tax.

Now, I know you will be disappointed, but trust me, we are the party that wants to distribute more wealth (wink) (pause) to the few. We have taken so much from the many and given it to...people like you who create wealth. Never have so few benefited from the misery of so many (lovely Churchillian ring about that, don't you think?).

You know our record is sound. More families using food banks, more families are living with slashed benefits. We have cut real funding for the NHS, social care, children's services, schools. We have driven down wages. There are now more pensioners in work than ever before.

Child poverty has increased. Pensioner poverty is rising once again (we are delivering just as we once did). We forced families out of their homes with the bedroom tax. We pushed disabled people back to work. Work insecurity has never been greater.

We are the party for the strivers. Those who invest their bucks in the City and who drive the world economy and when we have done Brexit, we will free you from all those regulations on health, environmental standards, rights in the workplace.

You will be able to make more wealth and we won't distribute it to help anyone in need. This system of accumulating wealth is your system, and I am here to help you. So be patient. Better rich than in a ditch, I say.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha