la_marquise (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
la_marquise) wrote2010-10-06 05:45 pm
la_marquise) wrote2010-10-06 05:45 pm
Entry tags:
The bad side of blue
So renewing Trident at vast cost is vital, it seems and can be afforded. But providing a living income for the poor, for single parents, for the disabled and many others must be cut in order to pay for the banks. When I heard Fox's announcement about Trident on the BBC lunchtime news, I swore at the radio and turned it off.
Same old Tories. Pay the rich and punish the poor.
Oh, and that child benefit thing? Originally designed to ensure some money was directed to children in all households, because income levels are no guarantee that the primary wage earner -- usually male, even now -- will provide adequate monies from his income for his children. Regardless of apparent income, there will be children who suffer because of this new measure. it's not about social fairness, it's just another money saver.
Of course the armed forces need proper funding. But Trident isn't about that. And we don't need to go on playing the arms' race game.
Fairness. Mr Cameron, I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Same old Tories. Pay the rich and punish the poor.
Oh, and that child benefit thing? Originally designed to ensure some money was directed to children in all households, because income levels are no guarantee that the primary wage earner -- usually male, even now -- will provide adequate monies from his income for his children. Regardless of apparent income, there will be children who suffer because of this new measure. it's not about social fairness, it's just another money saver.
Of course the armed forces need proper funding. But Trident isn't about that. And we don't need to go on playing the arms' race game.
Fairness. Mr Cameron, I do not think that word means what you think it does.