?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Phligm Phlagm Head-in-the-Sand Special

OK. I can sympathise with people complaining about the state of the budget deficit and the fact that we have to make enormous reductions in government expenditure to avoid economic calamity.

There are some things, however, that don’t make sense to me…

1. If you were organising this, why would you have as a guest speaker the leader of the political party responsible for the problem in the first place? It’s like getting Harold Shipman to speak at a conference about geriatric care.

2. Apparently the horrible right-wing media like the BBC (the B…B…C… – right-wing. Okaaaaaay…) made up all these stories about violent protest. Of course they did. Because of course, any violence was entirely on the part of the nasty police.

Photographs of police brutally attacking protesters by headbutting their clubs

3. Hang on. Aren’t police officers public sector workers?

4. The protesters “peacefully occupied” Fortnum & Masons and didn’t cause any damage whatsoever. Oh no. Why Fortnum & Masons? Presumably because it’s owned by a philanthropic charitable trust that gives lots of money to charity. How dare anyone give money to charity. The only way to give money to things like that should be to extort it from the taxpayer presumably…

5. Did Ed Milliband speak at the protest because he thought there were votes in it? Which votes I wonder. Since even the Guardian’s opinion polls show a clear majority in favour of cuts to public expenditure and the typical knuckle-dragging Socialist Worker Party thug is unlikely to vote Conservative next time around, who does he think is more likely to vote for a party led by a man happy enough to associate himself with violent yobs defacing memorials?

6. You’d think also that even though they pay your bills for your ‘office expenses’ and have told you and your predecessors what to do for a hundred years, that in the interests of, you know, winning the votes of the vast majority of people who aren’t in trade unions, you’d try and play down your party’s links. Whatever you do, you wouldn’t want one to be your warm-up act.

Bad timing.

7. The coalition’s spin doctors probably can’t believe their good luck at what happened yesterday.

8. What are these ‘cuts’ anyway? 2009/10 UK govt expenditure: £669billion. 2014/15 UK govt expenditure after 'cuts': £764billion. Or £647billion inflation adjusted.

9. How much impact will the ‘cuts’ have on the national debt? At the end of the current financial year, April 5, Britain's borrowings will be £909 billion. By 2015-16, they are predicted to reach £1,359 billion, an increase of more than 50 per cent.

10. Question: What sort of ‘anarchist’ protests in favour of a bigger government? Answer: One who doesn’t know what the word means.

Anarchists

11. Question: What sort of ‘liberal’ protests in favour of bigger government? Answer: One who doesn’t know what the word means.

12. Ed, do you really think that a couple of hundred thousand assorted lefties, students and trade unionists expecting someone else to provide them with a cushy lifestyle is comparable to the battle for black civil rights in America? Because if you do, then you’re not just a retard, you’re an offensive retard.

"I have a dream..."

13. It’s nice to see that the downtrodden and the impoverished can afford the trendiest designer labels. Heaven forbid that they should have to wear some kind of naff kagoule.

North Face

14. How come the protesters think they would be on the same side as the Libyans fighting Gaddafi? Isn’t Gaddafi the leader of a socialist party and a friend of the Labour Party?

No irony...

15. Since many of those protesting apparently have a few quid to spare, maybe they could donate some of it to the government. In fact, presumably some of our richer socialists do this anyway.

Total tax donated to HMRC between 2002 and 2009: £7,349.90.

£7,349.90.

16. Of course the “alternative” to cuts (again – what cuts?) is to reduce the deficit through growth. Easy! We just need ten years of growth at 4.8% pa! And that would reduce the deficit to zero. The actual national debt would still be growing during that time.

http://somebeans.blogspot.com/2011/01/deficit-reduction-through-growth.html

 

How the TUC's day of innocent family fun was detroyed by the evil, fascist media.