Thursday, 14 February 2013

spark up! newsflush special:
playground politics re-emerge in parliament

on the premise that compulsory taxation, in particular the class-discriminatory variety, is fundamentally immoral, spark up! today sought ed sillibugger's opinion as to whether the sum of two 'wrongs' is a 'right'; ed was sadly unavailable for official comment, but the general force of his of hypothesis appears to be:

'snot a stupid tax - mi yard in't worth quite that much see...nah-nah-na-nah-nah


it's them wot started it, sir

this blog apologizes for not predicting the proposal of this labour tat-policy in retaliation for the original conservative tit-policy.

Saturday, 9 February 2013

dunkin' double-standard smith bites back

i don't exactly understand why our beloved secretary of state for sardines has rushed to repond to criticism of his welfare-reform policies and in doing so constructed a defence so full of holes that it makes emmental cheese look like a more effective substitute...but he sure has...and whilst it oh-so-perceptively addresses the hitherto altogether unexamined issue of overspending labour-fuckwits, it wholly fails to address his own dogmatically heartless and hypocritical attitude towards the less well-orff in our communities...

...and bearing in mind that spark up! stands for the abolition of the welfare-state, every form of compulsory taxation, and all government generally (since the genuinely free-market, along with basic common-sense-and-decency, can go far further towards remedying social, financial and spiritual ills than any brain-dead bunch of dictating 'democratic' demagogues), i here reproduce, thanks to the spite-facilitator, the right honourable iain duncan smug's open letter to ed militant in its full and unexpurgated glory:

Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP

House of Commons



February 2013

Dear Ed,

We would both agree that social housing is invaluable for the hundreds of thousands people in the United Kingdom who need help and support in getting accommodation.

With 2 million households in England on housing waiting lists and 250,000 families living in over-crowded accommodation, I am sure you would agree the need to tackle the issue is pressing and deserves to be debated in Parliament.

But what we saw from you at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday was not an attempt to engage in a constructive discussion on how to address the problem of helping people find suitable housing, rather it appeared to be a pathetic exercise in political point scoring and scare mongering that does not help one single person, child or parent move any closer to having the home they need.

Your description of this as a ‘bedroom tax’ says more about your lack of understanding of how Housing Benefit works than anything else. This government is restoring fairness to a welfare system that was left in dire straits following thirteen years of Labour Government. One of the many steps we are taking is bringing housing benefit and social housing back into line with the private sector, so you only receive a payment for the number of rooms you need.

The truth is that after years under the last Labour Government, where this problem was allowed to grow out of control, it is the Coalition Government that has decided something must be done. You should know that local authority housing waiting lists rose from 1 million in April 1997 to 1.8million in April 2010. You should also know that by April 2010, house building in this country had fallen to its lowest peacetime levels since the 1920s, with the number of social rented housing stock falling by 421,000 units from 1997 to 2010. These are problems that we are having to deal with in government and try our best to resolve. To do that we have invested £19.5billion in affordable housing and will deliver 170,000 new affordable homes by 2015.

Given the last government, of which you were a member, failed comprehensively to deal with the housing problem, I would have thought you would have been the last to criticise what we are doing to alleviate the crisis you left behind. Nearly one third of working age social housing tenants on Housing Benefits are living in accommodation that is too big for their needs. That equates to nearly a million spare rooms currently being paid for by taxpayer and denying hundreds of thousands of people the chance to adequately house their family.

I am sure you would agree that every family deserves the chance to be housed comfortably. I would hope that you would also agree that the hard working tax payer who has to make tough choices of their own about what sort of property they can afford to live in, should not be paying for what is effectively a benefit subsidy for empty rooms.

At no time in the last 2 years and 9 months have you explained how you would deliver your 2010 manifesto commitment which stated very clearly that Housing Benefit would be “reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.” Your colleague, the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liam Byrne MP as forced to admit last year that the cost of Housing Benefit – at £20billion a year – was too high and you admitted last year that Labour in Government “didn’t do enough” on housing and that you “don’t have a solution for this”.

However, despite this admission, you sought to play politics with this issue. Yesterday, you referenced two cases of vulnerable people without making any mention of the fact this government has made £155million available to Local Authorities through Discretionary Housing Payments so that those very people you speak about can be helped make any adjustment necessary.

The use of individual case studies may provide political sound bites, but I must tell you that in every local community there are case studies about children having to stand to do their homework and others sharing bedrooms with their parents and baby siblings. You seem to have failed to be concerned about their plight, caused by the last Labour government’s housing failings which we are now trying to rectify.

The changes we are making are ensuring that our social housing stock is used as evenly as it can be so as many people as possible can access this invaluable resource.

I remind you that the Labour government you were part of, left us with a housing benefit bill which almost doubled in 10 years to £20billion and under your own forecasts would have risen to over £25billion by 2014-15, as well as over-crowded housing and an appallingly low level of house building. Not a legacy I would have thought you would have wanted reminding of.



yesseree, the confessions of a confused man, who's never had the plebeian pleasure of dwelling in an inner-city council-flat, i'd say...

  • in the first paragraph, the secretary of state commits himself to social housing, yet his government is not committed to financing the development of council houses - it merely proposes a programme enabling the building of affordable homes, most of which will be utterly unaffordable for minimum-wage earners.

  • in the second paragraph, the secretary of state begins to lay the foundations for his masterplan to cram 2 million households, including 250000 in already over-crowded housing, into the notoriously tight drums provided by the cheap-skate architecture of state-funded estates.

  • in the third paragraph, the secretary of state accuses ed hi-tax-band of pathetic political point-scoring...and then proceeds to spend much of the remaining letter doing precisely the same thing.

  • in the fourth paragraph, the secretary of state indicates that [we plebs] should only receive a payment for the number of rooms [we plebs] need - obviously implying, in light of his proposals, that, unlike people of his class, we plebs don't for example require a study-room from which we can strive to better ourselves.

  • in the seventh paragraph, the secretary of state affirms that every family deserves to be housed comfortably, yet apparently thinks nothing of ramming lodgers into historically cramped council accommodation.

  • in the seventh paragraph, the secretary of state refers to the hard-working tax-payer who is paying for the so-called "spare-bedrooms", yet absurdly fails to grasp the glaring fiscal fact that his own blatantly discriminatory policy will inevitably and adversely affect hard-working tax-payers on low-wages who currently claim housing or council-tax benefits, not-to-mention those recently unemployed claimants who have for many years previously been, what he divisively terms, "hard-working tax-payers" - does the secretary of state not respect "hard-working tax-payers" who are content to provide services to the british public in return for low wages?

  • in the seventh paragraph, the secretary of state refers to the "hard-working tax-payer", yet appears too bashful to admit that his labour-intensive work-programme has now transformed the unemployed classes into captives of industry, if not actual masters of their own material productivity.

  • in the eighth paragraph, the secretary of state admits by implication that he does not believe in subsidizing benefit-claiming tenants in the private sector who pay rents that other ordinary working families could not afford - so are we to infer that the secretary of state believes ordinary working people should not be able to afford accommodation in the private-sector?

  • in the ninth paragraph, the secretary of state underlines his government's generosity by confirming that £155 million has been made available to cover the cost of booting folks out of their homes - charming, neither do i recall hitler sending jewish citizens the bill for their train-fare to auschwitz.

  • in the tenth paragraph, the secretary of state claims that in every local community there are case studies about children having to stand to do their homework and others sharing bedrooms with their parents and baby siblings - so does this maxim hold true in the secretary of state's own local community in leafy swanbourne, buckinghamshire?

  • in the eleventh paragraph, the secretary of state describes social housing as a valuable resource - why therefore do his fellow cabinet members not pile-in and invest hundreds of billions of pounds in building more traditional council housing, as they undoubtably would do were the valuable resource some rare metallic commodity on the stock-exchange?

to the wider-minded british population (which, to be fair, broadly tolerates the wealth-waving antics of public-school-brats like income drunken smith), the condescending manner in which the secretary of state professes to be intimately apprised of the box-dimensions deemed socially-fitting for the likes of common state-educated scum must truly be gob-smacking; perhaps, instead of lording-it-up in posh london hotels or swanky state-subsidized pieds-à-terre, our members of parliament could, for the sake of the economy, try over-nighting in the wild wanton extravagance of a spare-room in a council-flat on hackney's pembury estate...?

Tuesday, 5 February 2013

i, dodos - the chingford nobhead

in terms of tactical character assassination, the basic problem with this unashamedly, yet somehow endearingly enlightening, left-wing-slanted slagging site, is its phenotypical predisposition to attack the politician due to disgust at his politics, rather than attack his politics due to disgust at the politician; one could, you see, spend silly time speculating as to whether, for instance, the secretary of state for shirk and pencil-sharpening is:

a) in any conceivable way a productive member of british society

b) nobbing his sexy parliamentary assistant

c) proud to have served a cushy-tour in zimbabwe (overseeing the former british colony's transition from a whites-only paradise to a black-on-black battlefield hell) as aide-de-camp to a british major-general who was previously intimately involved in the genocidal operation against kikuyu tribesmen in kenya during the "mau mau" independence struggle

d) confident that he was, in accordance with his own sponge-crushing criteria, fully deserving of the unemployment benefit which he claimed back in the early 1980s

e) comfortable with having married into the antiquation of a wealthy aristocratic family, which effectively owns an entire buckinghamshire village, lock-stock-and-smoking-barrel, thanks to a swash-buckling naval ancestor who was baroneted for empire-and-booty-building efforts including his military contribution to maintaining jamaica as a british slave-colony

f) looking forward to a rainbow vista of full multi-cultural employment in britain - where black people will no longer be socially-suppressed and conveniently tucked away in state-subsidized inner-city ghettos, but will, conversely, be gainfully occupied licking his wellies clean of aylesbury vale mud and otherwise generally attempting to forever secure their own small corner of idyllic english heritage by breeding-up his daughters and snaring-'n-snatching his sons

however i will resist such sordid temptation and stick solely and religiously to the subject of the politics that the secretary of state espouses...

for starters, i'm bound to remark upon the pointless nature of criticizing the secretary of state's desire to decimate the benefit system, for it is, after all, a government's customary prerogative to decide where and how to spend our hard-earned tax-monies (that's why one elects the arseholes into office in the first place, is it not?) and, in any case, the compulsory charity enshrined within the welfare-state has done little to bring communities together, quite the reverse, in fact - which is why the united kingdom is so financially, physically and emotionally defunct; please remember that, although the welfare-state was originally the well-intentioned brainwave of those wishing to eradicate poverty, parliament introduced the relevant social legislation at a time when the public had grown used to leading an almost anarchic war-time existence, and when the deadly toll of taking the british population into two devastating, yet ultimately avoidable, world wars had drastically reduced confidence in the absurdly incompetent ruling elite - so as it is for many beleaguered commonwealth immigrants today, the welfare state was, for the common man of post-war britain, essentially a bung of blood-money that bought-off a brewing class-revolution; much of the normal world would ridicule our obsession with automatic entitlement to unearned security, but would nevertheless relate closely to our anger at the posh parasitic public-school pirates whose government policies deliberately discriminate against and exploit enormous sections of society, both at home and abroad, and constitute, alongside the crucial collaborating influence of social ignorance, the prime root cause of the endemic poverty which we have subsequently sought to alleviate through the benefit-system.

therefore, it's not necessarily a question of the secretary of state's precise policies that we're dealing with here, but a question of his motivation for effecting them; if the cuts to public-services are strictly ideological and 'for our own good', then why were they not made during the effluent eighties, when the yuppy champagne was being pissed down the pan, or in the 'booming' noughties, when tings could only get better? furthermore, at a time when a decreased tax-burden would be a surefire boon and boost to our flagging economy, why are public-health and social-security benefit-services being degraded without a corresponding reduction being made in taxation? i mean, how are we meant to source private health-care, private education, and private insurance when we are still paying through the nose for government services which are barely extant? lower taxes are probably the only reasonable remedy for the woes of our economy, yet apparently they're not propitious for the government slush-fund which fills the gaping gobs of our lords and masters at ministerial feeding-time.

the middle-classes used to complain about 'paying twice' when choosing to opt for private healthcare and education, but bizarrely the dire condition of state healthcare and education will now force everyone to 'go private' and to 'pay twice' - once for a service which no longer truly exists, and once for a service which has been set-up by cabinet ministers' business-boss-mates to catch the desperate deluge departing from state provision and cash-in; the conservative politician's fundamental rationale for privatization is no longer ideological, it is clearly cynically commercial; you got it - the public pay twice, the politicians get paid twice.

yes, it's all very well cutting unemployment benefits, but the british privileged classes, whatever jolly canvas they may paint, simply don't want to let darkies and other socially-disenfranchized groups get their feet anywhere near the real establishment or employment ladder - at least, not before those keen underclassed candidates have first crawled on their hands-and-knees, slurped cock, and sold both their own and their brothers' souls to the great white hegemony in the rich-man's mind's-eye - and best don't count the ('successful') likes of celebs such as diane abbott and barack obama - they're just fluke figments of their own furtive imaginations.

yes, it's all very well cutting unemployment benefits, but fossilizing red-tape and suffocating taxation make it pretty much impossible to make a legitimate go of a small business in britain today.

how then are the deliberately disenfranchized classes to afford private-sector-services?

the secretary of state favours bullying those on the jobcentre work-programme because he loves the powerful buzz it gives him, and because it drives cheap labour in the direction of his accomplices ready-and-waiting in the manipulative mercantile employment-market.

the secretary of state favours absolute immigration-control because it creates, for the benefit of unscrupulous firms, an inevitable indetectable sub-class of illegal immigrants who can be used-and-abused below the minimum-wage without legal recourse to any official employment tribunal.

what next, sir? job-seekers on work-programme treadmills generating environmentally-friendly electricity for parliament and the civil-service? perhaps, to raise production-levels, you might give your job-gerbils a free-organic-lunch from supermarket left-overs, but obviously 'the perk' would have to be deducted from weekly-benefit payments as 'grub in lieu of cash'.

to the secretary of state, the social-justice of equality, sex and race legislation, combined with the welfare-system, comprises a handy head-guard (such as worn by sparring boxers) for the less-advantaged in society - allowing him and his peers liberal licence to punch the crap out of their customers without any fear of causing actual bodily harm; it's all sinister psycho-ops, antagonism and intimidation.

does he care?

does he fuck.