Tuesday, 17 March 2015

Family Values

Rachel Reeves assumes that, because she is John Cryer's sister-in-law, then the Left will not come after her.

She needs to be taught a lesson.
Posted by at

12 comments:

  1. Anonymous18 March 2015 at 00:17

    As you know, most benefits are paid to people in work because their jobs don't pay enough for them to live on. But apparently Reeves doesn't know that. IDS mustn't have told her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Lindsay18 March 2015 at 00:24

      IDS doesn't know it.

      Despite the alleged popularity of his policies, he almost never gives interviews, and the producers refused to allow any questions on his brief when he was on Question Time, nor did Newsnight ask him anything about it soon afterwards.

      His fake CV would get him sanctioned by any Job Centre in the country. But he is never asked about that, either. Well, of course not.

      As for Reeves, she makes one pine for the days of Shadow Cabinet elections. Cryer might then have had her job instead of her.

      Ho, hum. Another clear Labour lead, especially when one considers the boundaries, tonight.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous18 March 2015 at 00:32

    Well done to Reeves for working out that being the party of benefits just isn't very popular.

    They all get there in the end.

    Even socialist France has now given up the 75p tax rate after it drove all the money abroad.

    They all learn in the end-it just takes socialists a bit longer than the rest of us to grow up.

    Owen Jones will one day travel a bit, see the world and grow up too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous18 March 2015 at 00:37

    She has finally worked out that benefits aren't very popular with tax-paying workers. Well done, round of applause etc.

    The pollsters have been telling her that for years.

    Expect more of this from Labour-it knows which way the wind blows.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/07/welfare-reform-who-whom/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Lindsay18 March 2015 at 00:45

      She has finally worked out that benefits aren't very popular with tax-paying workers.

      They are the same people, you ridiculous Little Lord Fauntleroy. But one cannot expect the barely pubescent scions of a thousand years of tax evasion to have a clue. As the last five years have rather illustrated.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous18 March 2015 at 00:40

    Esther McVey is on course to lose her seat - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-champion-esther-mcvey-5352910

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Lindsay18 March 2015 at 00:42

      But if we just got Rachel Reeves instead, then what would have been achieved?

      Delete
  5. Anonymous18 March 2015 at 00:45

    Wow. Labour falls behind the Tories in the polls then suddenly issues an emergency statement vowing to get "tough" on benefits and poor Lindsay can't see what's going on.

    I mean it's almost as if there's an election coming.

    How thick are you?

    Does Lindsay think the Benefits Party is a good election pitch?

    Fake attempts to pretend to do what the public really want just before an election (remember Tony Blair's "tough on crime"?) are as old as the hills.

    Lindsay must be about two years old.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Lindsay18 March 2015 at 00:48

      The Blair Government was very tough indeed on crime, but you cannot be expected to know that.

      This is not "what people want" except in the imaginations of those of you who, since you exist entirely outside fiscal policy, have absolutely no idea how it works.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous18 March 2015 at 00:48

    Next up, Labour panics and says "we're not the party of immigration"-we're going to get tough on borders.

    Except everyone really would laugh at that one.

    Even more than they're laughing at its latest desperate pitch to avoid being forever the Benefit Street party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Lindsay18 March 2015 at 00:57

      Everyone would laugh? You mean the DUP, which has already accepted that longstanding Labour policy as part of the threefold basis for a confidence and supply arrangement?

      The other two parts being the longstanding Labour policy of increasing defence spending (not hard to do, after this lot) and the longstanding Labour policy of, er, abolishing the Bedroom Tax, massively unpopular as it is. It doesn't even exist in Northern Ireland, yet the DUP still wants rid of it everywhere.

      The whole of the Government's benefits policy is equally well-liked and well-received the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Since it hits hard-working people.

      You inbred cocaine addicts have no idea, and the last five years have thankfully been your last ever five years of being allowed anywhere near the running of anything.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)