Fox (n): carnivore of genus vulpes; crafty person; scavenger; (vb) to confuse; -ed (adj): to be drunk.

Monday, 25 June 2012

These people.


IT'S the culture of entitlement that sticks in the throat.

The idea that you are due something for not doing much, that someone else ought to pay for the roof over your head, and that however many children you have and however much they may cost the price for all of it will be covered, somehow, by another.

The scroungers, the cheats, the fraudsters who constantly have their hands in our pockets without so much as a by-your-leave or even a thank you.

They make tens of thousands a year, these little sods, while the hard-working classes slave and have to suffer cutbacks and decide they can't afford another child and turn down the heating.

It's about time we all stopped pussy-footing around it for fear of upsetting these leeches and had a proper, informed debate about the something-for-nothings who are bringing the nation to its knees.

So let's start with Dishface's plans to discourage people having more than three children. Why stop there? Two is the maximum required to sustain the population, and seeing as there's 62million of us already perhaps it should be only one, like they do in China.

As with all things the Government does this new policy is best illustrated by picking a particularly fecund family who cause a lot of trouble, so let's start the forced abortions and fines for over-breeding with the Windsors.


This shameless little lot - immigrants, originally - have boasted about their lifestyle in a series of TV documentaries. The matriarch comes from a long line of feckless layabouts and herself spawned four children, far more than necessary. One of them runs a charity and another only works three days a week, but they both do better than the other two who enjoy a lavish lifestyle the sources of funding for which are obscure.

Three of the four have created broken homes by wilfully getting divorced, the grandchildren seem to fall in and out of bars most nights, and one of them has had noted issues with drugs, Nazis, racist comments and even been questioned over killing rare birds.

One has just married a girl who's never done a proper job in her life yet blows around £35,000 a year on clothes and make-up - all paid for by someone else. The family's agog for her to start breeding too, to boost their claims upon the state.

A shocking bunch. They should all be spayed, according to Dishface's rules.

"Quite simply," he says, "we have been encouraging working-age people to have children and not work... this is difficult territory but at a time when so many are struggling isn't it right that we ask whether those in the welfare system are faced with the same kinds of decisions that working people have to wrestle with when they have a child?"

Of course we should, and about time. Did you know there is a group of 136 people who expect the state to pay their children's wages? Not just their offspring, either, but their spouses too sometimes, and they're earning a comfortable whack - 46 of them earn over £30,000.

We spend £3m a year providing jobs to the relatives of MPs, and while I'm sure there are some working hard for it you also have the likes of Derek Conway, who was suspended and then stepped down after being found to have employed sons Freddie and Henry as researchers when they hadn't actually done much research.

Outrageous. As Dishface says, these people should have to make the same kinds of decisions as ordinary parents who can't all get their youngsters a job someone else pays the wages for.

Then there's housing benefit being removed for the under-25s, forcing the unemployed to work for a living and limiting their financial support for two years.

Quite right. We'll start that policy with a man who was supported by his parents his entire life, who is one of four children, who thought nothing of staying out all night at 14, getting boozed at 16, who bought his first home with a mortgage he can't have afforded on his wages as a 'researcher'.


Neither his father, grandfather and great-grandfather had proper jobs, preferring instead to juggle other people's money while taking the occasional bit as a fee for the juggling, and he associated in his youth - and in fact is related to - those aforementioned feckless layabouts the Windsors.

He picked up girls at 'sherry parties', he not only demanded the state pay for his home but thought it right we pay for his wisteria to be trimmed as well, and he had four children himself without consideration for whether an over-populated island really needed them.

His cash benefits amount to £142,500, plus more for mortgage interest, council tax, heating, water, electricity, gas, two further free homes we pay for when he has two of his own (one without a mortgage), travel costs, food and oh yes, we pay for his parties too.

And what does he do for that money? Well, he watches football.


He plays fruit ninja.

He flies his tennis coach out to Tuscany while London is having riots.

He also makes lots of 'policy decicions' every day, and says that he gets up at 5.40am to start reading missives from a little army of people who do as he tells them without wondering if he actually has a mandate to make them do these things.

And he says lots of very sensible stuff about how we should crack down on the feckless and withdraw state support from those who don't earn it.

"We have created a welfare gap in this country," he said. "Between those living long-term in the welfare system and those outside it. This has sent out some incredibly damaging signals. That it pays not to work. That you are owed something for nothing. It created a culture of entitlement."

He's quite right. Those living off the state in Buckingham Palace and Westminster think they deserve a comfortable lifestyle and that those who do not have the same lifestyle are wrong in all they do.

These people think that £20.30 a week child benefit for your first youngster, and £13.40 for successive children, is not only enough to pay for them but will even leave parents with a profit.

These people think that paying tens of thousands a year in housing benefit to under-25s, most of whom are working and on low income, is a way of the poor making money rather than private landlords.

These people think that they can have as many children as they please, but that other people can't.

But thankfully there is one man who wants to change all that, who wants to even out the unfairness and make everyone work and pay their way. He will stop the reliance on the public purse we are all disgusted by and make the scroungers knuckle down and earn.

I'd happily vote for that, but it seems that as the Prime Minister can't enforce any of these grand schemes while in Coalition and he also can't get elected on his own we'll miss out on all these lovely reforms and have to put up with the corrupt, degrading, them-and-us hierarchy we're stuck with.

Then he'll be made redundant and we'll have to pay him even more.

Man's a prophet if you ask me.





22 comments:

Richard Brennan said...

Fantastic blog post. I wish Miliband came out with stuff like this instead of pandering to the Daily Mail.

pirate said...

The man's a profit.

Anonymous said...

A recent YouGov poll for Prospect magazine suggested a startling 74% of the public - including 59% of Labour voters and 51% of those on the lowest incomes (below £10,000) - thought that welfare payments should be cut. The most popular cuts are for, you guessed it, the unemployed and never-married single parents. The least popular cuts are for the elderly.

From Nick Robinson's blog today.

Josh Darlington said...

prophet?

Tootsie said...

His rhetoric about people getting any kind of state benefit is beginning to exactly resemble the rhetoric in 1930's Germany about Jews: sponging manipulatively off the rest of us, while laughing into their sleeves; having too many children; and especially how it's "not fair" that "they" have a better life than some of "us".

If he does ever get his way, cutting housing benefit to all under-25s (and if you think it will stop there, I have a bridge you might like to buy) the knock-on effects of this demented bit of social engineering will be felt for generations to come - it amounts to a ban on starting a family for all under-25s, for a start, since no responsible couple will start having kids (and the ones who do will be prime targets for taking the child into care at birth) - the chaos this will cause will bring this country to its knees.

Since most HB is also paid to people in work, it means part-time work is closed to that age-group, and you can imagine what that's going to mean for small businesses who rely on part-time workers because they literally cannot afford to pay someone full-time rates.

Anonymous said...

My parents died when I was 18. I'm 23 and I just got made redundant from my public sector job because of the government's cuts.

I would be homeless without housing benefit, there's no way around that.

I don't understand how anyone could live with themselves knowing that the people being hurt by their policies are the ones who are already without a family, without a job, without money.

I've already got low enough self-esteem thanks to being unemployed, and now Cameron is telling me I deserve to be homeless.

Fuck you David Cameron. Fuck you, you utter cunt.

Anonymous said...

Sure, because if you ask someone to choose between a work-shy scrounger taking foreign holidays with their six children and a little old lady eating cat food so she can heat the house, it's not too hard to figure out which one you would pick.

Andy said...

Related subject, sort of: I'm 53 with a heart condition so can't work full-time, used to have part-time job but Tax Credits withdrawn as I only worked 16 hours. Now you have to work 30! So, effectively, our gloriously leaders have deliberately made it completely unviable to work. Stuff the whole sodding lot of them!

SoupWaiter said...

very insightful, the royal family is funded by taxes and has foreign ancestors, civil servants line their own pockets and then the clever play on prophet/profit at the end. Yeh, let's have a revolution when East Enders is finished, or should we wait for the football final?

sirenofbrixton said...

*applause*

If anything promotes a 'culture of entitlement' it's the lazy, feckless rich. One generation gets rich via fair means or foul and the rest of them think that they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, simply because they won the birth lottery.

sue said...

when i 1st started work as a lively 15yr old (yeah 15) i was told that i HAD to pay into what was then the "state pension" (it was the law then) i was told that if i wanted to be able to retire at 60 and have a liveable pension then this is what was needed. In those days i earned £7.50 per week and £2.50 of that was deducted in tax, NHS and Pension (a lot of money then) I paid into this shite for years and years and years, so why now when the payments have been taken, am i being told what a bad person i am for not paying into a private pension scheme, why am i being lambasted for being part of a generation that lives longer ???? why am i being told that i am not goin to get a penny of said pension until im 66 if im lucky, why are people of my generation being treated like scum it was the governments that decided the pension rates, it was the governments that decided how much we had to pay and it was the governments that MADE us pay. I certainly was never told to not bother paying because it wasnt worth paying into, yet again i find myself part of a group of people who are derided, abused and looked upon like im some kind of parasite scrounger who has sat on my arse all my life and done f*ck all. My reply; F*CK OFF you TW*TS if it hadnt been for people like me who worked all my life then people like YOU couldnt have had the FREE educations you have so obviously taken for granted, couldnt have had the FREE NHS that did your operations, delivered your obnoxious little scrotes, couldnt have had a myraid of council services, and a whole load of other stuff that YOU people took and enjoyed as your "birthright". Hor dare they critise ME for allowing THEM to be where they are today. MORONS..........................

Erik Zoha said...

Great piece of writing

John O'Connell said...

Foxy, you nailed it again. :-)

Anonymous said...

"These people think that £20.30 a week child benefit for your first youngster, and £13.40 for successive children, is not only enough to pay for them but will even leave parents with a profit"

Better question, why anything at all?

You've had a kid, well done, here's some cash every week...

Can't afford your kids, well don't have them, I can't afford Sky TV so I don't have it, I can't afford a new car so I don't have one....

Anonymous said...

Totally agree.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough, can you please repay all the child benefit paid to your parents for you? Unless of course you are 81/82 and never benefitted from it.

Anonymous said...

Anon: Sky TV and a new car are somewhat easier to turn down then a pregnancy.

Tootsie said...

Question, "Can't afford your kids, well don't have them" - what if you lose your job after having them? In this economy, that has been happening to people even in previously secure lines of work.

Hand your kids to social services, to be taken into care, perhaps? Because we all know how safe & advantageous to society that is (NOT).

Palm them off onto any old relative/family friend who'll have them (we all know how that works in America - clue: person volunteering to have children often has ulterior motives)?

I want to know why people like you seem to think everyone on benefits has always been there (instead of realising real, good people can lose their jobs or fall sick), and why you think that it's a choice, and finally why you think that the next generation are some kind of luxury item, when in fact they are YOUR future, when you're old, helpless, and dribbling in a care home bed. Answers awaited eagerly.

Anonymous said...

This sort of person is clearly reading the wrong papers and their distorted view of the world misses the point of having a society in the first place!
The only way this idea could work is if people had to pay a "bond" to the state to look after their children if they lost jobs/got ill etc.
That isn't going to happen - normal people will just stop having children and society/economy will implode!
I imagine the idiot who wrote these comments would also object to mass immigration ....but someone would be needed to look after them in old age if only the stinking rich can afford children in the future!

Anonymous said...

Foxy,I love you and your blogs. You make great and hilarious points about Dishface and the Windsors. I will add a point though- and this is after being called a leftie Guardian reader all of my adult life. Writing as an ex teacher, it was the norm at my school for Year 11 kids to have kids of their own asap to get a house etc. The norm.
Many of them of them had four or five children by their early twenties and received Housing Benefit/Child Benefit/Income Support/DLA and Social Services involvement. They had never worked. I'm not ranting here, just saying that was and is what happened and still happens. A lot.

Tootsie said...

"Many of them of them had four or five children by their early twenties"

I take your point, but I'd like to add another side to this: I planned and waited until I was in my early thirties and established in my work to start trying for a family, only for my relationship to break down at the exact same time (unrelated), then I spent the rest of my thirties unsuccessfully dating and getting, to be honest, more and more desperate. I'm now into my 40's, single, and will probably never be a mother - something I wanted since childhood. (No, I'm not going to foster kids, I'm a normal person not a saint.)
So when I read your reply just now, I had very mixed feelings, but my primary feeling is your 20's is the time to have your kids, and sod people who say otherwise, because if you lose that window of good reliable fertility, and when dating and stuff is a lot less complex (ie people aren't already divorced, damaged, maybe with kids from a previous relationship) then you're writing yourself out the gene pool. I will always regret that my mum died without ever holding her grandchild just because I made that choice.

That's my "story" - I hope it's never anyone else's because of these draconian proposals from Dishface.

International Man of Apathy said...

Interesting and funny read. Sort of. We shouldn't have to laugh at the preposterousness of situations like this, but we need to so that we don't all explode. I wrote a piece a while back that suggested some similar themes. Have a read. See what you think.

http://dansiron.co.uk/2011/01/20/childless-benefits/

Thanks Foxy.

Loving the blogs.

Dan.

Post a Comment