…They are all the same. Politicians, that is. Certainly there is no real difference between those who represent the big three parties.
Anyone who has been following the furore over the workfare scheme this past few days – weeks even – will see something we have seen before. It’s just that the rosettes are a different colour.
Put aside for a moment the specifics of the policy and the rights and wrongs of such. A policy is put in place and proves unpopular with the electorate. What follows is a collapse when partners drop out because they can see the damage caused to their reputations if they continue. Then follows the government demonisation of the naysayers. They are accused of extremism or of being radicals on the hard right/left. They are nothing more than a few disaffected oddballs who do not represent mainstream opinion. This, despite it being obvious that the protests do represent mainstream opinion. Opinion that crosses the political divides. Opinion that is in stark opposition to the government.
What we saw in Chris Grayling’s radio interview the other day was remarkably similar to the railing of David Blunkett nearly a decade ago when people dared to challenge his ID cards scheme – and, subsequently partners distanced themselves. Also, in a tweet on the matter left by a supporter of the conservatives had another echo of the past.
Main point s/b about long term gain, not what happens in a few weeks. What’s diff between that & volunteering?
It would seem that it is not only the Labour party that is incapable of differentiating between “voluntary” and “compulsory”.
As James is wont to point out on a fairy regular basis; they are all the same and they all represent the enemy of liberty. When their policies are challenged by the people they are supposed to represent, their reaction to the democratic process is slurs, lies and demonisation. Vote for none of the bastards.