So asides from our Prime Minister being so far removed from the ordinary man - this week it transpired he thought LOL was lots of love when signing off his emails. I don't know what I find more disturbing, that he signs off emails with lots of love, or that he is so out of touch. He probably thinks a MILF is a Mother In Lovely Frock.
I digress. The latest, lets play at running the country as I was born to rule along side my posh chum, is to give £100 worth of parenting vouchers. Never mind about people losing their jobs, pensions, double dip recession, high streets that resemble ghost towns and the mass unemployment of our young. Lets hand out vouchers! Isn't this the sort of thing he slagged off Labour for? The mamby pamby nonsense he spoke of - a bit like the vital Sure Start centres that Labour created. You know the ones that are threatened with closure along sides... wait for it...our public libraries.
This is in the same week he wants to reduce maternity pay to 18 weeks which I suspect would be the lowest in Europe. Maybe Dave, just maybe, it would be a good idea for the mother or father to raise their child and you might not need vouchers. In addition, he did away with the £250 child trust fund voucher for all children born in this country.
Before I continue I should point out that I think all politicians fail us on all sides. It is not a vocation anymore it is a career choice. They play at running the country for a few years and then do a spot of public speaking and make more money. The Prime Ministers job, as far as I can see, is about the only one in the country you don't need any qualifications for. You just have to have the gift of the gab and have spectacular networking skills.
One person this week said to me he preferred the uppers ruling the country as they don't need to steal. I would have to disagree. What about the rich MP who decided to bill us for his £2,000 bird house on his moat? They're all at it. They probably have money because they don't use their own for anything.
Now I twittered a few disgruntled comments on twitter. I received a tweet back by, I am assuming, a Cameron supporter. No doubt won over by the X-factor syle election. Remember it? Everyone was on benefits and why should we all be paying for the scroungers. She asked "Is it Dave's responsibility to budget for children he doesn't choose to have?" I am assuming she is asking why pay for children being born. I mean is this really where we're at? What a sorry state of affairs when people have this mindset.
Tories are a bit like racists aren't they? Whereas a racist will normally start a sentence with "I'm not racist but.." A Tory will start with "its not MY fault" followed by a lot of me's, I's, Jack and alright.
That comment sums up with what is wrong with modern Britain and its not the 'welfare spongers'. The "if its not in my best interests I will oppose it" middle classes. Part of the legacy of the Thatcher era is that we have a lot of people who are only interested in policies that they can directly benefit from.
Now I'll tell you why he should be responsible. He should be working for the good of the whole society. It benefits nobody to have an underclass. You may be able to shut your door and say well I work hard, I know the difference between right and wrong but you still have to encounter people that haven't had the same start in life. When your car gets broken into, your house is broken into and when you are affected by riots. Why would someone care about trashing a society they don't feel part of?
So it benefits you to have a society where the people at the bottom of the rung actually have a start in life. You can't complain about the state of the country if all you do is think about yourself. You don't care about people at the bottom. You will encounter these people. Surely its better for us all that people have an equal start in life? That is what the £250 was all about as were the vouchers for childcare costs as were the Sure Start centres and as were the libraries - access to information free of charge regardless of wealth or status.
Now I hear the childless pipe up - why should I pay for children? I have chosen not to have children. Well let me tell you why because, again, you will encounter those children when they're adults and how they conduct themselves. They will also pay into National Insurance contributions, pensions etc. Look at the bigger picture why don't you. No matter how much money you obtain through the course of your lifetime you're invariably going to need caring for. If you haven't had children then someone elses will end up looking after you.
And so to the vouchers. I am guessing that any parent who questions their ability is probably a half decent one in the first place. The very vouchers that the government are aiming at (people on low incomes, on benefits) are not going to use them in any event. The obvious thing to do is prevent the child becoming badly behaved and this goes back to giving them a decent start in life, decent schooling and decent accommodation. Here's a thought - how about one salary being enough for a family to live off ? One parent staying at home to raise the child? The government encourages the parents to leave their children in childcare. This is so the parents pay tax, the nursery pays tax, the minder pays tax. Its all about the money. And when things go wrong - the riots being a prime example - lets hand out parenting vouchers.
I've said this before and I'll say it again this country is morally bankrupt as well as actually bankrupt. Although we are lead to believe this, has anyone actually seen the country's books? Perhaps a peoples' audit is due. How is it we can afford to provide one billion pounds worth of vehicles to Afghanistan?
It is not parenting vouchers we need but Tesco (soon to be national currency) reward vouchers. We could exchange them for a one way ticket for this, quite frankly, idiot of a Prime Minister to leave and never to return.
N.B One blogger, Nickie, believes it to be a good idea. Read her take on it here.