4 2 mins 9 yrs

It is a horrific statistic that shows the madness and guile that characterises Labour policy….

Welfare handouts to those languishing on the dole have risen almost twice as fast as average wages over the past five years. Out-of-work benefits have jumped in value by an astonishing 20 per cent since 2007 while wages have crept up by just 12 per cent, official figures released last night reveal. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said the figures proved that automatically increasing benefits by the rate of inflation, as  has previously been the case, was ‘not  fair’ on working people whose taxes fund  the handouts.

Exactly, but fairness towards the working people of the country is not the aim of the Left. They seek to take from working Peter to hand over to idle Paul, confident that they can then count on the votes of idle Paul. It is a simple enough strategy that always ends in ruin but the interim is fun time for client groups.  Amazingly, I heard a Labour spokesman argue that welfare had not risen ENOUGH during this period.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. Surely nothing unusual about this?
    Liberal Western democracy is characterised by governments formed from the majority vote.
    As night follows day the majority are formed from those who have less, and they will decide that the majority will take from the minority. This holds true over time and tells us that since the introduction of the universal franchise the West has become more and more indebted until we now have reached a position where the debt of the USA is far beyond any prospect of payment, ever. But still the majority will tend to feed off the minority. Simples! All the hopeful politician must do to win is offer the minority as a sacrifice to the majority
    Roughly speaking liberal democracy dates from 1914.

  2. “Liberal Western democracy is characterised by governments formed from the majority vote.”
    True, but that majority vote is not representative of the majority. Apathy and increasing corruption/perceived incompetence has meant that more people are disengaged from the democratic process.
    I believe that the original principles of our Welfare State were good and meant well. But as the years rolled by, militant unionists, short term industrial planning and poor management influenced by our class system resulted in the emphasis changing from productivity and the work ethic, to compassion and entitlement for the unemployed.
    The Labour party has shamelessly promoted the rights of the unemployed at the expense of the employed and a vibrant economy.
    Socialism should carry a national health warning..

  3. Isn’t it really a case that our current definition of ‘democracy’ is fatally flawed?

    What we have at present is based on mob rule, – no ‘if’s, or but’s’. Unfortunately the ‘haves’ – the providers of the where-with-all, – and the ‘have nots’, the always voracious and ever present consumer, have disproportinate powers to influence political power. With the ‘have nots’ being in the ascendancy.

    Sure, everyone should have a vote, – but those that contribute to the survival of a society by their hard work and efforts should have a vote that ‘carries more weight’, simply to restore the balance between the far more numerous ‘have-nots’ and those that provide.

    There used to be a ‘property qualification’, – perhaps not the most perfect of yardsticks, but surely a ‘tax payer’ qualification would be more practical and pertinent, and may well have the virtue of being an incentive to work and to be on record as being a nett taxpayer.

  4. Socialism should carry a national health warning.
    Yes. But Western Liberal democracy provides the ideal milieu for socialism to thrive, it is for this reason that we have three main parties which are all socialist of slightly varying tone, depending on the current trend of the polls.This form of democracy carries education and the MSM with it to sustain it.

Comments are closed.