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.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more