WESTMINSTER HOUSE OF HYPOCRISY.


 

       You have to hand it to them for arrogance. Our nice new shiny young millionaire Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement recently in which he said, “—the age of plenty is over–”. Of course he wasn’t talking about his friends in his millionaire/billionaire club. No, you see their plenty will still go on and on at our expense, and as for us, who never had the plenty in the first place, well our imaginary plenty is all over, again. The stench of hypocrisy coming from the Westminster House of Corruption is overpowering. When that place is in session you probably have the largest collection of millionaires sitting in one room than anywhere else in the country. They will sit and in all seriousness discuss the need to tighten belts and get used to the age of plenty being over. They will point out how wages will have to be frozen or cut, how services will have to be decimated, while they resent having somebody looking over their extortionate expenses claims. They will continue their champagne dinners and retreat to their summer residence in some leafy idyllic spot, leaving us to get on with the poverty and deprivation.

          The decisions of this millionaires’ club will heap untold misery on thousands, while they will be rewarded by their friends in the corporate world for their part in depressing the wages in this country. How much unemployment? Well the Fraser of Allander Institute at Strathclyde University has come up with a figure of 60,000 job losses in the Scottish public sector alone. Professor Brian Ashcroft, policy director of that institute stated, “The public probably don’t realise what we we’re facing. We are set to see a cut in spending unprecedented in recent history.” Though I can accept the learned Professor’s figures, I’m inclined to think that it is an underestimate. It is the “WE” part that I take offence with. All the top paid academics and the millionaires’ club at Westminster keep uttering the word “WE” when there is no real connection between their lifestyle and that of the ordinary people. This is to create the impression that there is some relationship between the lifestyles of the two classes, that we have something in common. “WE” have nothing in common with “THEM”, their decisions will hurt us, it will in no way hurt them. Do they have the right to inflict a such pain and deprivation on others while they themselves lap up the luxuries of a parasitical lifestyle? Does anybody? If, as they keep saying, “we’re all in this together,” well let’s start sharing all the wealth of the nation to see to the needs of all the people, as well as all sharing the burden. As a democracy perhaps they will let us, the people, vote on that suggestion. However, I’m not holding my breath on that one.

ann arky’s home.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s