Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Shut your fucking face, Polly

Look, it's been a really long day and I am really not in the mood for any fucking about and yet Polly fucking Toynbee continues to write her poisonous, ill-informed crap. And so I am dragged away from filling endless black sacks with the accumulated rubbish of the last decade in order to put the boot into this fucking, stupid woman (even though Trixy has already conjured some, frankly, rather unpleasant images of her own).
Here is a Christmas message from the Department for Work and Pensions: there will be a harsh crackdown on lazy, feckless, work-shy scroungers and all other undeserving poor. All who Can-Work-But-Won't-Work will feel the lash of John Hutton, as he announces a tough review of benefits to be published soon. 'Tis indeed the season to be jolly.

Yes, it is if you are earning £140,000 a year for writing two columns of crap for a shitty fucking student newspaper full of fuck-faced, know-nothing arseholes like George Monbiot. Fucking hell, he's a piss-ignorant hypocritical cunt as well; he's the only reason that I can say that Polly is not the most awful, bigoted shitface in the world.
There is nothing wrong with his reasoning, since the welfare social contract always ordained that those who can work must work in exchange for the state caring decently for those who can't. "Work is the best welfare, a hand up, not a hand out" was New Labour's first mantra and it remains true for most people most of the time, but not all.

Oh, what a surprise.
This social contract has mostly been kept by both sides under Labour.

You are a lying whore, Polly; I cannot believe that you can actually believe the shit that you write and thus can only conclude that you lie, lie, lie.
Tax credits and benefits for children have doubled and, for the first time, pensioners are now less likely to be poor than the general population, thanks to pension credits.

No, Polly, you pig-ignorant piece of crap; what Labour has done is to artificially inflate wages, via the minimum wage, and not raise the Personal Tax Allowance. In this way, they have raped the poor for more money than ever before. They have then made the poor beg—beg, Polly, you evil shit, on their hands and knees and through intrusive forms—for some of their own money back. And they have done this through a system so complicated and opaque that even those who administer it have no idea who should be paid what; the result is the gross overpayments—£1.9 billion here, 1.8 billion there—and the threatening demands for repayments of large amounts of capital from those who could never afford it. Fuck you, Polly, fuck you right in the ear.

Instead of letting the poor keep their own hard-earned money, Labour has made them supplicants to the state. The same is true of pensioners: instead of raising the state pension in line with inflation, NuLabour have forced them to beg for some crumbs from the goverment's table. It is a disgusting and immoral way to act towards those who have worked and saved under successive governments (who have pissed away the money that should have provided the pensioners' living). Further, Brown changed the way in which inflation is measured, which gives a much lower figure, and thus allowing The Gobblin' King to justify his meanness.
Fulfilling their side of the imagined contract, 70% of the long-term unemployed have taken jobs and there are now virtually no young long-term claimants, thanks to the New Deal.

Yeah, Pol, you know how that works? Someone signs on for six months; they are then faced with being forced onto the New Deal. Or, of course, they sign off for a week (running up debts) and then sign on again a couple of weeks later. Being a new sign on, they are not counted amongst the long-term unemployed. You thick bitch.
But yesterday Hutton shook a threatening stick at those he regards as social-contract defaulters. He made a good case: one in 10 of those who draw jobseeker's allowance has spent six of the past seven years on benefits, yet in many areas there are unfilled low-skilled jobs alongside high rates of unemployment. If the jobs are there, why don't they take them? He picked on Glasgow, which has above average unemployment and twice as many unskilled vacancies as the national average.

Is it that simple?

Yes, it is, Polly. Remove all benefits and watch those jobs get filled.
There is a very grey line between the plain idle and those...

We've had sixty years to get this right, Polly; how much longer do you want to give your precious state legislators?
...who are illiterate...

Whose fault is this? That's right, Polly, the state has failed to educate them to even the most rudimentary standard.
... mentally unfit, psychologically odd...

Far fewer than you would imagine; have you ever watched Trainspotting?
... ex-prisoners...

Against whom employers are not allowed to discriminate, and who do not have to declare their record for minor crimes.
... unattractive to employers...

Generic catch-all crap. Why are they unattractive to employers?
... non-English speakers (Labour has stopped free English courses)...

Although they have spent £100 million in the last year on translation services.
... drug addicts, alcoholics and other bad prospects.

Tough. Those are choices.
In Glasgow, for example, what are these vacancies? Mostly part-time hotel and catering, bar work and waitering with unsocial hours.

I know a number of people who work unsocial hours (not least Trixy who, leaving aside anything else, is on 24 hour call for a great part of the week). Besides, this is, again, a choice; if it was a choice between working "unsocial hours"—not being able to go on the piss with your mates every night—and starving to death, I think that you would see those jobs filled pronto.
Those running programmes to help the unemployed into work say these are student jobs, or for young foreigners: the hardcore unemployed are simply not equipped to do this work.

What? Why the fuck not? If students or those who can barely say, "hello" in English can do the work, then why can the long-term unemployed not do those jobs and do them better?
Many live on peripheral estates miles out of town with no night buses back - a taxi costs three hours' work at the minimum-wage.

Actually, Polly, Glasgow has a really quite reasonable nightbus service (as does Edinburgh). And there is always the option of fucking walking, you know. It would help those obesity stats too.
It was glib of Hutton to say of east European migrants: "If workers from Poland can take advantage of these vacancies in our major cities, why can't our own people?"

Because the Polish people have a work ethic, and they don't have the large fucking benefits that our indigenous layabouts do.
Of course employers choose a perky young Polish graduate with no family to support, renting floor space in a communal flat, to wait tables, instead of the last remaining long-term claimants, depressed, lacking confidence and public face-to-face skills.

Why would the worker's familial or domestic conditions be of any consequence to the employer, you nitwit? They might be of concern to the employee ("can I afford to take this job? Can I pay my rent? Can I support my family?") but is of bugger all interest to the employer. The employer offers a certain job for a certain wage: it is up to the employee whether they agree to this contract or not.

The employer will care whether or not the employee is lacking "public face-to-face skills", but were the long-term unemployed to get off their fucking arseholes and make an effort, then they might find that they have an advantage over someone who barely speaks our fucking language.
But let's keep this in perspective: there are only 100,000 of these hard cases, and the jobseeker's allowance is a pathetic £57.45 a week, not enough to survive on. I tried, and fell into unavoidable debt within weeks.

Don't be a silly cunt, Polly; jobseekers' allowance is very far from being the only benefit available; the main others are, of course, housing benefit (wherein the government pay your rent) and Council Tax benefit (wherein you don't pay any).

So, what do you have to pay for? Well, before I discovered the delights of the farmers' market, I used to spend about £20 a week on food. Before my flat was filled with computers, I was paying about £10 per week on gas and electricity. I make that a total of £30 out of nearly £60 per week (and I am living on my own). Shall we say another £10 for water and—hey, go wild!—let's add another £10 per week to the fod bill, shall we? I reckon that leaves another £7.45 per week; surely enough to travel to the dole office and odd job interview (and, yes, they can walk: they are doing fuck all else).
Those in debt fear taking a job as loans sharks chase them once they start earning.

Aw. Diddums.
Let's look at how the state breaks its side of the social contract.

Wait a minute, Polly; are you admitting that your precious state fucks everything up? Fucking hell, there's hope for you yet.
The real value of that £57.45 has halved since 1979: it's now worth just 10% of the average wage and falling every year.

Tough.
Meanwhile, Labour's New Deal for the young and for single parents was good but for the over-25s was always weak, with feeble training and little personal adviser support. Yet these 100,000 need huge help and ongoing support to stay in work: two-thirds of new claimants have claimed before in a revolving door of insecure jobs.

Why do they need help to stay in work? No one else gets "help" to hold down a job; why should these people?
The government boasts of 2m more jobs in a booming economy, yet British and EU policy lets more attractive workers roll in, undercutting wages without any balancing obligation on employers to give jobs and training to the unemployed.

Polly, you know full well that we cannot stop anyone from the EU entering this country. You also ought to know that we are seeing net emigration, i.e. more people are leaving to escape you and your piss-awful fuck-toy, Gordo, than want to come into this god-forsaken land.
In Glasgow, there were once no flights to Poland. Now there are three a day.

Yes, isn't the market wonderful?
The government is in denial about the full impact of the migration that helps power the economy by keeping down wages. Meanwhile, the minimum wage is so low it can be impossible for those without children to work at a profit. Why work if it leaves you even worse off? The social contract says work is the best welfare, but for some it isn't. One reason why is housing benefit - the glitch in the system. Beveridge never solved it, Labour promised a review but abandoned it; yet losing housing benefit on taking a job is a great disincentive to work.

Yes! Can it be that Polly finally gets it? That she has noticed the 90% marginal deduction rates that prevent people from going into work? Can it be that Polly is going to start advocating a Citizen's Basic Income or, as Timmy puts it, "a non-means tested income paid to all, irrespective of employment or not"?

No, of course not.
Look closer at housing and see the damage done by gross inequality, as wealth at the top stamps on those below.

No, I tell you what, Polly; just for a change, why don't you tell us how the majority of the poor use their relative wealth instead. Do they invest it wisely, or do the sales of cigarettes go up? Do the children get new shoes, or do the parents get a holiday on the Costa Del Sol? Do hundreds of new businesses spring up or is there a new TV in the leeeee-oooownge?
London has the highest unemployment, with half its children born poor. Yet it is also the richest place. This is no mere accident of Dickensian contrasts, but partly cause and effect.

Really? I'm sure that you are going to explain in detail—as opposed to in your usual bigoted broad-brush protestations—exactly how this happens, aren't you?
As the City reaps its £9bn bonuses, that money fuels an ultrasonic house-price boom.

Yup, because those City types are all buying houses in Peckham and Dagenham, eh? Don't tell me, Pol, there bonuses are actually brutally ripped from the hands of the poor handing over their meagre savings to put in a pension too, eh?
It's bad enough around the country at 180% up in the past decade, but far worse in London. Rents are sent sky high, making it impossible for the unemployed to lose housing benefit by taking a job.

My brother pays £60 a week for his room in Ladbroke Grove; it's hardly the fucking Ritz but it is also not the apocalyptic amount of unobtainable cash that you are implying, Polly. In fact, it's pretty comparable with a lowish Edinburgh rent.
They will never own a shed in the capital...

Cry me a fucking river, Polly; since when was owning your own home a human right?
... as the gap yawns ever wider between the 70% homeowners counting untaxed winnings every month, while the rest and their children are consigned to social housing forever.

Well, we had better relax the planning laws so that the government (or, preferably, someone else) can build all of this housing then, hadn't we? Unless—and here's an idea—once the houses are built, we let the tenants buy them for well below the market price. Hang on, haven't we done that before...?
But asked yesterday about this wild inequality, Hutton intoned the stock reply mouthed by Labour and Tories alike: "It is our aim to raise the floor not to lower the ceiling."

Quite right: capitalism is not a zero sum game, you fucking numpty.
Why is the language of rights and responsibilities, of the duty to contribute as well as to draw out, never applied to those who dance on the ceiling as they spray jeroboams of Cristal over those living on the floor?

Sorry, Pol: "draw out"? What, precisely, do your jeroboam-weilding fantasy figures "draw out"? Do you think that their children use state schools? That they use the NHS? That they draw anything away from the state's spending?

Why don't you tell us, Polly? After all, you'd know.
It is the job of government to police its welfare state rigorously or risk it losing public trust. Yet who could look at the deformities of the way we live now and conclude that the most pressing problem is the 100,000 misfits at the bottom?

And your solution is...? We evil fucking libertarians have got one: it's called the Citizen's Basic Income.
But before you despair of Labour...

Despair? It's not despair that I feel: it's blind, spitting rage!
... wait for next July's comprehensive spending review.

Why? Do you really think that it is going to announce anything different? No, it'll be more of the same: yet more complicated tax benefits, yet more subversions of the free voting process by ensuring that more citizen's become state supplicants, yet more corruption and decreased social mobility.
Even as Hutton gestured with his big stick, his benefit review will offer more support to get people into work and easier borrowing from the social fund to help people escape the loan sharks.

Polly, where are these loansharks of yours who only pursue people when they have money? In your fucking imagination, that's where.
But, above all, he repeated Labour's pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 - no shirking, no moving the goalposts.

Oh, yes, Polly, because NuLabour's "pledge" is infinitely more cast-iron than the NuTories' "aspiration", eh? You poor, deluded fool.
That means some £4bn of credits and benefits must be announced within the next seven months.

I shall prepare to count my blessings.
In its crab-like way, Labour talks tough to shore up faith in the welfare system, knowing it must soon pay out more large sums or fail in what Hutton still calls the most important target of all.

You really are the fucking pits, aren't you? You fucking Champagne-socialist shitbag: you stinking, hideous hypocrite, why don't you fuck off and die? Fuck you.

8 comments:

chris said...

DK am I correct that up in Scotland water is part of the Council Tax (or whatever it is called up there) since your water estimate looks very high. Last quarter mine was £20, and I live in Devon which with the rest of the southwest is notorious for it being expensive.

As for the brainless wonder it's her nationalist socialist streak coming out again, blaming everything on the eeeeeeeeeevil foreigners. And that obsession with the loan sharks, is there something there that she isn't telling us. Maybe there is a connect? Maybe some slavic gentlemen threatening to break her kneecaps if she doesn't pay what she owes? Do you think they sell tickets to watch?

Anonymous said...

Good fisk, except "You also ought to know that we are seeing net emigration, i.e. more people are leaving to escape you and your piss-awful fuck-toy, Gordo, than want to come into this god-forsaken land." isn't true. We have massive net immigration of 500 people per day!!! Of course that's legal, recorded immigration, so the total net immgration will be higher.

Government figures suggest 185,000 more people came to live in the UK than emigrated in 2005 - making the population grow by 500 a day.

Anonymous said...

Should you be feeling particularly bored here's something else for you to savage.

Martin said...

DK,

In 1994 I paid £60 a week to rent a room in Reece Mews, SW7.

That a room in Ladbroke Grove now costs £60 a week might give the Pollster's views a little weight.

Rigger Mortice said...

on the mopney,shes a bitch and a typical champagne socialist.

DK early on in you mention pensioners and the poorer off but omit to reference the increase in council tax suffered by these two groups which has efeectively doubled in 7years while inflation has been around 3% max!

also it worth noting that if you can get on DLA then you get an extra £70 on top of your benefits.Course it's not worth working.

Anonymous said...

"Polly, you know full well that we cannot stop anyone from the EU entering this country."

That's weird, I thought we had the right to force anyone from the 2006 and subsequent intakes to apply for work permits on almost the same basis as a non-EU citizen, and that the UK and Ireland were the only countries who'd declined to exercise that right.

PDF

Devil's Kitchen said...

PDF,

Yes, we can stop them from working: however, you'll notice that I said that we cannot stop them entering the country. Which we cannot.

DK

Trixy said...

It's Directive 58/2004/EC of the 29th April 2004, along with the Article of the ECHR which states that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of country of origin.

Which is why around 50,000 people can claim benefits in the UK, mostly child benefit even if that child is not living with them.

You may have heard the government talking about having border controls shortly. The big one coming in is EU Borders 2014 which is the EU immigration scheme.

To spell that out, that's when the EU takes control of every single aspect of our immigration. I suppose it's a 20 year celebration since David Davies first gave border powers to the EC. Not that he'd tell you that now.