With any luck, anyway.
When they were rich, his parents must have paid an awful lot into the Welfare State. So, when it all went away, they took a bit out. That is how it is supposed to work. The boy's speech only called for that arrangement to remain in place, pointing out that it had saved his family from penury.
He never claimed to have lived his whole life on benefits even due to the force of circumstances, still less as a lifestyle choice, and he certainly did not defend anyone who made such a choice.
If George Osborne really does use his conference speech this week to reverse his removal of Child Benefit from top-rate taxpayers, then what will this youth's tormentors have to say? Has it really come to this, that they feel the need to pillory a 16-year-old-boy?
And do some of them genuinely not realise that the money from the sale of a repossessed house goes to the bank, not to the former householder? Out of this allegedly callow youth and his detractors, I think that we can all see who is, and who is not, in touch with the experiences and concerns of Middle Britain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment