Saturday, 17 November 2012

They're just not that into you

For those of you with a masochistic streak in them, Thursday evening's Question Time was very telling about our political class and even more so about one particular party.

Someone among the audience asked the question around the notion of should we boycott those corporations who pay a very low rate of tax in the UK.  The response was first offered to Labour's Harriet Harman who slightly danced around it, but somewhere in there put out something about how they should pay their fair share.  Then Chris Grayling offered something a bit weaselly as well in which he threw in a "I don't drink at Starbucks".

Smiling wryly through all of this was Nigel Farage.  He started to point out the Euro angle to this which seemed originally to be met with groans suggestive of "here we go again", but his finish was quite revealing about the others.

In his reply he essentially pointed out the gaping hole in their arguments when he stated that these corporations were only taking advantage of a EU wide agreement that permits them to choose which EU member state they pay their corporation tax to.  He further explained that's why so many organisations choose either Ireland or Luxembourg because they've priced theirs to attract business.

Now this post is not about Farage, the EU or the rights and wrongs of tax payments of international corporations.

It's about politicians.  It's about the fact that Farage wasn't the only one on that panel who knew what the arrangement was for these companies.  They pretty much all knew it.  If they didn't, well that's a whole new issue.  In reality they will have known, yet when asked the question, not one of them (excepting Farage) gave the audience the honest answer.  They danced around it with grandstanding pronouncements that give the impression they too are outraged are efforts to wriggle out of paying the British Exchequer what it's owed.  They could have told you straight but they didn't.  Anything but the truth was fine by them when answering to the public.

It was bad of all of them to omit this, but worse still I think for Labour.  Regular readers will know I am scornful of Labour in their pretence to stand for the "working" man and woman which they wear like a cloak to hide all manner of views that run counter to such a philosophy.  Harman knew the answer as well as Farage and Grayling did, but she carried on the pretence to promote herself and her party with the notion of taking the fight to big bad business.  The truth was secondary to that need.

My point?  It's this.  They're just not that into you whatever their window dressing might suggest.  In fact the more they suggest they're for the everyday man and woman, the more it seems the counter is true.  Telling you what's real and letting you decide doesn't even come in to it because their need is more power for them.  You're little people.  When they want your opinion they'll give it to you, so you just sit down sonny and wait until you're told what to do.  You don't matter to them except for the fact that you're currency, a down payment on their place at the trough. The only time they really want you is when they want your vote.  They'll roll their meaningless manifesto in a bit of fairy dust, grab your vote and crack on with what they wanted to do in the first place. they don't care about you because you have given them permission to.

Now I don't say that to depress you.  I don't want you to decide it's all pointless return to the electronic mogadon in the corner of your lounge.  That's the worse thing you can do.  Those we think of as "in charge" are being overtaken by events across the world.  We've seen they're not really cut out for responsibility.  They ballsing up the simple things so let's have a think about how well they're really managing the difficult stuff.  Well, one example of how they handle it is evidenced in the QT example that leads this post. They tell a different story altogether and hope you don't notice.  Returning to your comfy chair however is the worst thing you can do.  You see they're breaking things so badly that if they're left unchecked, or we don't find leaders who are cut out for handling serious issues, the whole thing is going to go bang.  When I say go bang, I mean break, shatter, collapse.  If you think it's bad now, wait till it goes bang then you'll see a definition of bad. 

If it goes that wrong, you won't be watching riots like they have in Greece and Spain on your television, you'll be watching them from your lounge window.

Have a think about that and decide whether it's back to the television or if you need to think about what you can do to put this nation back on the right track to prosperity and liberty.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. They're just not that into you whatever their window dressing might suggest.

    Bottom line - evidence overwhelming.