RSS Feed
January 24th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
By
Quentin Letts
Last updated at 11:15 PM on 23rd January 2012
With such stickiness, such cow-eyed moistness and melodramatic poise did they mention the word ‘children’. Each time it was used there came first a tiny pause, a descent into semi-tragedy, a lowering of the gaze in coy horror. Anyone who disagreed with them was clearly an evil child torturer. A Satanist!
The Leftist-stuffed, sociologist-heavy, dottily extravagant House of Lords was trying to wreck – sorry, it was debating – the Government’s attempt to reduce the £20billion per annum we taxpayers spend on social security.
Opposition and Lib Dem peers did so by enwrapping themselves in sugary sentiment, hugging tight the notion of childhood and morality as though it could be nourished only by extravagant public spending. Iain Duncan Smith, Pensions Secretary, has come up with an idea to cap welfare income at £26,000 per household (that’s £35,000 in taxed income). Not bad, eh?
‘Human misery’: Lib Dem peers, led by Lord Ashdown (left) could not bear to pass Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms without lifting the proposed cap on child benefit
Many would say IDS has been far too generous. But here was a proposal which has encapsulated an urgent principle – that society must be able to say, at a certain point, ‘stop taking the mickey, some of you welfare claimants, you’ve had enough and it is distorting society’s values and economy’. Labour and, yes, several Lib Dem peers were aghast.
One mentioned Charles Dickens. Another, the ‘poverty’ of having to live under a welfare cap. A third, the ‘human misery’! That particular hyperbolic gem was from Labour frontbencher Lord Mackenzie of Luton, who still claimed he was in favour of a cap.
Crossbencher Lord Best, who used to work for the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust (no further questions, m’lud), was anguished that the jobless would not be able to continue paying rents of £350 a week in the East End of London. Er, might the rental market not drop if the State was not shelling out such high sums?
Time and time and time and time again, we heard that opposition to the wicked Bill was driven simply by fears about ‘the children’. It was about their ‘life chances’.
Time and again, these same people claimed that, of course, they accepted the need for welfare reform. They accepted the need for a cap. And yet they could not bear to think of money being taken off ‘the children’.
Support for the Government came, most effectively, from Lord Fowler and Lord Newton, who spoke valiantly despite struggling for breath. Lord Hamilton (Con) made a snorter of a right-wing speech which made the Lefties tut with displeasure. Cracking stuff but perhaps not helpful to his cause.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, with a gaseous little smile, led one of the amendments which threatened to torpedo the cap. It would also, by the by, leave taxpaying families, most of which have children, facing a far larger national deficit, which in turn would mean less money for schools and hospitals. But the Bishop did not mention them.
‘Children do not choose to be in large families,’ he burbled, referring to children as ‘those who have no voice’. It was not the fault of unemployed people that they did not have jobs. We, the in-work, had a duty (according to this purple-cassocked fool) to support anyone who was out of work. If the children of unemployed people had to move house, they might lose their ‘friendship groups’.
This episcopate gulper, straight from the Dave Allen school of wet-ninny bishoping, told us in a creaky, primary school-teacher sort of voice, while scratching his head and fumbling a hand over his face, that Jesus had a special regard for children.
Indeed our gracious Lord did. But I am not sure I recall any mention in the New Testament of open-ended housing benefits for jobseekers. I do not recall St Mark telling us, in his brisk verses, that housing benefit should be omitted from consideration of other handouts.
To go from Christ’s teachings to line-by-line legislation on handout levels for the unemployed in 21st-century Britain seems to me a leap of Bob Beamon proportions.
Share this article:
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
