And who, one may ask, made Britain ‘lazy’?

According to Politics Home several Conservative MPs have challenged David Cameron to enact reforms that will tackle “lazy” Britain.  Dominic Raab, Priti Patel, Chris Skidmore, Elizabeth Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng have said the Prime Minister needs to address the fact that “Too many people in Britain, we argue, prefer a lie-in to hard work”. 

In a new book, Britannia Unchained – Global Growth and Prosperity, the group argue that “we must get on the side of the responsible, the hard working and the brave. We must stop bailing out the reckless, avoiding all risk and rewarding laziness.” The criticism added to the pressure exerted on the Prime Minister by Boris Johnson this week, who urged the Prime Minister to stop “pussyfooting”, and to concentrate on encouraging growth.

According to the Evening Standard, the “young guns’ of the new Tory Right called for a culture of “graft, risk and effort” to propel Britain into the “superleague” of nations. But who created this apparent ‘laziness’?

Who created and maintains the scenario whereby it is easier to stay on benefit then actually work for a living? Who created and maintains the situation whereby large families are housed – at no cost to themselves – in properties worth more than £1million? Who created and maintains the situation whereby this country is enslaved with the creed of equality and diversity, human rights and political correctness? Who created and maintains the situation whereby any EU ‘citizen’ can walk into this country and obtain all the benefits – at no cost to themselves -that people who have ‘paid into the system’ seem unable to get? Who created and maintains the policy of pouring money into foreign countries for their benefit, while our own old, vulnerable and disabled people are forced to ‘go without’? Who created and maintains the scenario whereby the political elite live and further their own lifestyle and wealth at the expense of the taxpayer  - here and here*? Who decided and maintains the scenario that we should abide by laws, created elsewhere, that affect both the worlds of business and private endeavour? Who created and maintains the scenario whereby this country is being changed by social engineering which results in the white population feeling ‘their’ country is no longer ‘theirs’?

It is a tad ‘rich’ when members of the political class start preaching to us to rectify all the problems that they have created. It is a tad ‘rich’ when members of the political class exhort us to ‘tighten our belts’ when, at the expense of the taxpayer, they do not do likewise. It is a tad ‘rich’ when members of the political class invoke ‘our laws’ when, patently, they are anything but. It is a tad ‘rich’ when members of the political class make calls for growth without acknowledging that politician cannot create growth – only the people can do that; and to do that they need government to ‘butt-out” of their lives. Finally, it is a tad ‘rich” of the political class to preach the creed of ‘democracy’ while ensuring that political control will ensure that democracy is doomed never to be seen by their ‘congregation’.

I can understand the calls of those who wish to ‘fuse’ politicians and their sycophants with hemp and lampposts. Hopefully ‘Harrogate’ can achieve that without shedding blood – well, ours anyway. It should not be that difficult for ‘Harrogate’ to show that the reason for our ills – and that of our nation – can be laid at the door of the political class and the sooner that section of our society are made irrelevant the better we all will be.

Just saying………

 

*With acks to Guido Fawkes and Subrosa.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

9 Responses

  1. Ian Hills says:

    Make no mistake, there will be bloodshed. The establishment will fight the people to try and retain its privileged position.

  2. Robin says:

    Part of the problem of the Powers That Be is that they are so enamoured by High Tech , Computers , Finance and the Law that any other way of a person (and the country ) making a living is deemed unworthy of consideration -even if it means a business closing due to blatent unfair competition .
    Other countries PTB want to enact policies so that people have jobs . Ours think everyone should have a career .

    • david says:

      The problem is that the PTB believe they – and only they – know what is right for us; and have no intention of asking us.

      That is the problem – and that is the problem we, the people, face and must change.

      • Robin says:

        Many of the PTB are time servers who may even know they are incapable . They use their positions to cover up their ineptitude , easily done as there is not a constitutiomal rule to make them work for us .

  3. Edward Spalton says:

    Well, everything has to start somewhere -even if it has taken a very long time. Recently arrived MPs are lumbered with the burden of their predecessors’ acts of omission and commission..

    Having been an employer, I have seen the effects of welfarism over my working life. Back in the Sixties the Labour Exchange (now the Jobcentre) would send round hard cases – people who were not looking for work but had to appear to be “genuinely seeking work” to qualify for benefit. Being inexperienced, I would start to ask these men what work they had previously done ( as little as possible was the true answer) to see if they might be employable. I was put right by one old sweat “Just sign the bloody card, Mister” he said. He had no interest in getting a job and, like the others of his kind, would have been bloody useless if he had turned up for work.

    This was a time of full employment when you could walk out of a job one day and into another the next, if you looked anything like useful. Yet it was also the era when Roy Jenkins praised the contribution which “the voluntary unemployed” were making to society!

    I knew an up and coming (eventually quite senior) social worker at the time and got to read “New Society” and other publications of that profession. There was an overwhelming drive to abolish the very idea that there should ever be the least discrimination between “deserving” and “undeserving” recipients of state benefits. They were all to be “clients”.

    There was even a serious proposal that the workshy should be spared the indignity of appearing to seek employment. They should become “state registered ergophobiacs” and be awarded an income without conditions. £500 a year was suggested. This was a little more than the basic wage of a farm labourer in the early Sixties.

    When Jenkins’s “Civilised Society” was more entrenched in the later Sixties, there were special extra benefits for single mothers. One of our office girls got pregnant. The directors were traditionally minded but kindly men and did not sack her as many then would have done then. They asked her if the young man was going to live up to his responsibilities and marry her. “Of course not” she said “I would lose my benefit”. I knew of cases in other firms where the mothers of office girls insisted on the sacking of such girls. They did not want their daughters associated with “that sort”. How times change!

    More recently huge numbers of migrants from Eastern Europe arrived and found jobs here, proving that there was plenty of available work but the welfare state preferred to keep our own young people on benefits in idleness.We have the underclass which the political class has decided to fund and inertia will keep it in place – unless people like these MPs actually do something. Now the new arrivals are entitled and aware of a ramshackle system available for milking. I met one Eastern European,admirably busy doing two part time jobs, whose ambition was to claim benefits in every Western EU country, using fellow members of his ethnic community for impersonation. I was assured that this was being done successfully.

    It is obvious that a system built on the concept of mutuality cannot survive this sort of plunder.

    • david says:

      As ever, an interesting comment Edward.

      What it shows is that political control does not produce the best outcome where society is concerned, nor the lives of those in society. Hence, as politicians have made such a mess of things how about the people had a go? Direct Democracy?

      Being a cynic I doubt the motives of any politician and none more so than those of ‘Priti’ MPs.

    • John says:

      It is not that simple.
      The jobs they have are frequently ones that demand specific skills or education. Things that most employers no longer provide.
      Once they start work they are able to claim benefits, such as working tax credit, housing and council tax benefit.
      Many have “black economy” jobs, such as car washing, driving delivery vans etc..frequently they are paid under the “living wage” (minimum wage)
      You want a thriving “economy”, then take away all the rules and regulations, such as the minimum wage, the employers national insurance contribution etc…
      But if you want a “thriving economy”, such as the ones in India and China, then you’ll have to have the downside to same…..much lower wages, no holidays, no healthcare etc..
      You will also then have the other effects, such as massive poverty, pollution, poor health and no pensions.
      And it wasn’t the people, directly, who caused the jobs emigration….it was to have higher profits (or some profit)….
      Meanwhile, back in the real world…..where the ones you never hear about (which is very many)…have to survive on the massive benefits they get…..suck as 70 quid a week “unemployment” pay….then there is council tax benefit (capped, by Labour in their last years…and re-capped by the current government, who haven’t decided yet which party they are) and housing benefit (ditto).
      Council-tax benefit, by the way, is paid BY the council TO the council.
      Housing benefit is paid to the landlord, and is capped…no matter that they may live in “social housing”, it is capped anyway.
      At the end of the day, any day, jobs that have gone abroad are NOT coming back.
      The entire supply chain has frequently gone with them.
      In China you have complete towns that are nothing except one large assembly plant and their entire supply chain of smaller companies. In this country councils would never allow that, and it wouldn’t happen anyway since this countries managers are just not up to the job.

      • david says:

        Apologies but your comment is in answer to what or whom?

        I fail to see why a thriving economy should result in no holidays, healthcare, pensions etc…….

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012