Idle young not entitled to crap

UPDATE: UK Conservatives have a plan to

get poor off welfare and

into DECENT jobs*

[more later]

original byline: rich mooch tries to scare off the competition.

WE'RE SO LUCKY!

WE GOT ANOTHER SPEECH ON LAZY POOR PEOPLE

FROM A WELL-CONNECTED RICH GUY

THANKS, PAL

Michael Portillo [pic], the sometimes tv pundit and underemployed former politician recently gave the plebes a view from Conservative-town. I'll discuss some of his wisdom below, from a

slightly different perspective, no doubt.

source:
Sunday Times 30 August 2009 pg21 "the idle young should be entitled to nothing" by M. Portillo

rant first-details later

The gist of his rant is that healthy young people should, as the Brits say, get on their bikes,

i.e. "get a freakin' job, ya yob!"

even though this former MP came from humble beginnings,

his stints at Cambridge and paliament have made him

reek of privilege and champers.

It's easy for a connected politico

to find money growing on trees,

but he's not happy just vacuuming up the lucre,

he has to crap on the poor and working poor, too

otherwise he wouldn't be a true black-'n-blue conservative.

He's telling people who probably qualify for minimum-wage jobs

to stop taking welfare benefits

so that they can be indentured slaves

for the rest of their lives.

I wouldn't be surprised if exactly none of them actually listen

to old forked-tongue Portillo.

[pic. look at my money. Sniff it. Come on!]

would you give up a free or subsidised flat

and take your family to go live in a squalid rented bed-sit?

Does MP understand how little money would be left after you pay for

rent and food?

Right, so he was a politician, and the Social Services minister. Doesn't he know this stuff?

If all there is is burger-slinging jobs that don't allow you to live properly, then what's the use?

LET'S CHAT ABOUT CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY! YES?

It's not as if rich folk are in a hurry to pay more taxes.

In fact, most don't pay any,

so who's "leaching off the public" now?

The conclusion drawn here?
THE POOR HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES AND

THE RICH have RIGHTS.

4) BUT rich folk provide jobs, right?:

The government gives companies money all the time, reportedly in order for them to

"hire some workers", coff-coff, brbrbrbr, coff.

If you just happen to have the right connections, borrowing money is no problem, and so you just squat on your right to make money and pay staff as little as possible.

what's that you say?

"that's what the market will bear" you say.

Look who's leaching now.

Forget about people wanting to get hitched and/or raise a family.

Many are working hard

and reaching none of their financial goals

(especially when the rich are stealing their investments).

Others are feathering their nests

with the carcasses of lives wasted

serving the parsimonious rich.

5) BEHIND CLOSED DOORS:

COUNCIL HOMES vs. PARLIAMENT

(or, "Where the power really lies")

Since MP was a politician, he knows how the laws are slanted in favour of rich people, who are so rich they don't need any favours.

Slimy leechers, anyone?

Let's forget the share and share alike that we teach our kids. That ends with grade school.

The way things are now, the rich are taking from the poor.

we got some reverse/moon-walking Robin Hoods
over here!

The discussion about what the poor should be doing, is not one for rich people to be having.

They're too busy making money and bribing politicians, or 'making' politicians who will do their bidding.

So, the poor are also scrambling to get whatever they can, as always.

Just like their rich neighbours.

God bless the former lot.

Before we talk about Portillo's actual comments, some erudite opinions on employment are in order. Maestro!

Michael Portillo's words, verbatim:

[my comments, Costick 67]

"In 1834, followers of Jeremy Bentham, the philosophical radical , succeeded in shaping the poor law to discourage idleness. The reform offered relief only in workhouses whose conditions would be worse than existing on even the most meagre wage." [Nice threat. Don't you think Thatcher would have done it if she could've?]
"That dole (under Churchill) was deeply resented as undermining a man's dignity." [Verily. 'Tis better, for dignity's sake, to bend forth and accept your life of servitude, like a supository.]
"there has always been a supply of willing [read: starving] workers from abroad to clean the streets and hospitals, serve us our burgers and pull our pints." [I love globalisation. We create starvation around the world and accept the lucky few who can manage to get here, so that we can take advantage of them here as well.]
"Should we not be concerned about the spiritual poverty of so many lives spent unproductively" [The spirit he's talking about can only be gotten by years spent in private/posh education and at parliament, so 'no worries' for our poor friends.]
"But the welfare reforms of American liberals in that era [1960s] parlysed the economic progress of millions." [Ya, the Sixties was a time of stagnation. The poor live so much better now in the US. Actually stagnation started with right-wing ThatcheReaganomics, after the bloom had come off the post-war economy.]
"Because black families were among the poorest- but not because they were black [racism never existed??!! Not in Portillo's private-club life, anyway. No anti-Spanish/gay pogroms on his CV. You brute!] - they fell victim to spiralling welfare budgets." [Better to be a victim of racism and of capitalism. You'll get more handouts from the Church that way.]
"In Britain- maybe throughout western Europe- belief in work, vocation, community, family and God have declined together." [This man will say anything. This stinks of rhetoric. Since when has a gay man been interested in the traditional nuclear family and religion? 'In God and dollars we trust' say the rich. That's why He's on the currency.]
"If a few young men from sink [read: shitty] estates are now heroes in Afghanistan, why should we presume that all the others are capable of nothing useful at all." [Oh, I understand him now! The rich send the poor, who have no choice, to go do their killing for them. There's another reason for the intelligent poor to stay right where they are. If the rich had to send their kids, all wars would end immediately.]
"Whenever I asked Murray what to do, he was pessimistic that a democratic society could take measures tough enough to halt our moral degeneration." [Ya. I don't see any bankers or politicians in jail over the financial crisis. Good one, pal.]

-Costick67 ( 8^P

pics from fotosearch.com. royalty-free

*either I'm a prophet, or somebody's been reading my blog. It's more likely that some Conservatives read Portillo's article and said 'don't say THAT, NOW!, or we won't get elected'. My main argument was that the poor can only lose by leaving welfare to flip burgers for their billionnaire bosses.