From The Metro:
I'm sorry, but George Osborne did have a choice over whether to raise VAT (Metro, Fri). He opted to so in order to raise £13 billion - the same amount of taxpayers' money he is giving away in foreign aid.
Then there are the billions squandered in fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and the hundreds of billions* we fritter away each year to our unelected rules in Brussels.
This bitter winder, 20,000 to 30,000 senior citizens are expected to die of cold-related illnesses. In far too many cases their choice is heating or eating.
This government, and the Labour one before it, had a choice too - look after our own people first. It's a choice they have all ignored. Shame on them.
Fred Bell, Greater Manchester.
* Cash payments directly to the EU are 'only' about £15 billion a year; the real cost is the £50 billion-plus a year it costs us to comply with all the regulations and the Green tomfoolery, but hey.
No wonder he's never around
27 minutes ago
7 comments:
It does annoy me immensely because the public never get a choice in these matters. Its just agreed between the main parties and all the 'right minded' (ie left leaning) media that the money this country sends overseas is sacrosanct. Jobs and services can be cut here in the UK but we can't let charity begin at home.
We've been bunging money at India for years as foreign aid, when their armed forces could roll over ours without even noticing if it came to a scrap. They have a space programme, and they have nukes. I read the other day they're commissioning their own GPS satellite network in Q1 2011.
Admittedly, I think I also saw a little while ago that the Indian Government has said it won't accept any more aid from its old Colonial masters but the whole experience does tend to underline the need for urgent review (i.e. cancellation) of all future foreign aid to all groups.
As far as I can see it only ever succeeds in cementing the status quo in places run by psychopaths, megalomaniacs, generals and religious leaders - with the latter group of course not above attempting to be all three of the other groups all at once.
No quarrel with the direction of the piece but "In far too many cases their choice is heating or eating" is clumsy and irrelevant propaganda.
The senior citizens have received their £400 per household heating subsidy.
Mind you, if they hadn't spent a lifetime paying for European politicians, they might not need their heating payments.
S, yup.
FT, I looked at the UK to India figures in 2008, and don't forget that on top of space race tomfoolery, India is handing over vast sums to Afgh in 'foreign aid'. Anyways, Umbongo is in charge of this dept.
WOAR, agreed, but a) I didn't want to edit out that bit and b) as the £400 is flat rate, come rain or shine, it is not really a 'heating subsidy' at all.
Can you explain how it isn't a subsidy because it is a flat-rate, please? I don't understand the difference.
WOAR, because it isn't in any way earmarked for heating bills and you can spend it on what you like (as expat pensioners in Spain like to joke, "We spend our winter fuel allowance on barbecue fuel").
They could stop calling it "Winter Fuel Allowance" and call it "Xmas bonus" again (like they used to). Or scrap it and add £5 to the basic state pension. Or keep it the same and rename it "Winter food allowance". None of this makes any difference to pensioners' net income or heating bills.
This is quite different to a true subsidy, where the DWP could say "We will pay you 75% of your heating bills from December to February", in which case pensioners would heat like mad during those months.
Many thanks.
Post a Comment