Wednesday, 22 September 2010

Best Suicide Note Ever….

A taxpayer-funded think-tank said yesterday that instead of offering tax breaks for married couples, the Coalition should pay out billions more in benefits.
Wha..?
The Family and Parenting Institute, notorious for describing marriage as an unnecessary institution, said the best way to support the family was by increasing subsidies for jobs and handouts for those who choose not to work.
*speechless*
The group also demanded greater taxpayer spending on quangos like itself.
Who the hell is writing this extended ‘Please terminate the existence of this quango ASAP’ missive to the ConDems?
The report stems from a conference organised by the FPI and its chief, Katherine Rake, who took over last year after leaving feminist pressure group the Fawcett Society.
Ah, right. Clearly, she’s either got bored with her £92,000 salary, or she wants to jump before Gove pushes her.

Better to burn out than fade away, eh, Kathy?
The FPI was launched by then Home Secretary Jack Straw in 1998 and its £8.8million budget is funded almost entirely by Mr Gove's Department.
Not, I suspect, for much longer…
The Department for Education last night said it had seen the report, but declined to comment further.
*snort*

14 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

Glorious.

The fact that Gove has just switched the funding to a free schools fakecharity headed by some Tory busybody is probably worth mentioning though.

allcoppedout said...

My guess Julia, is that we are all on benefits of some kind. It's just that the government doesn't hand them out. Someone might just do a survey of how much work all the hard-working and stars of our society actually do. Given my chance again, I'd be a kicker in an American Football team - a very efficient time to pay and risk job.

I do see a certain point in giving those who don't want to work money. It leaves the increasingly scarce work to those who profess to love it!
Couldn't be that most of us only work because we have to and hate scroungers because they don't have to suffer our pain, could it? If only we weren't so cynical, we might see this as a glorious plan, rather than one from the Baldrick stable. Surely we would not give up work in droves to live comfortably rearing children we actually see and get to play with? Is your dedication in doubt?

I also like the 'reverse Plato' in this one. Instead of upper-class Guardians eating for free and whiling away hours watching naked gymnastics (Parliament?), we give away this life-style to the unworthy.

Brill spot, as ever.

Bill Sticker said...

Off with their funding!

James Higham said...

The group also demanded greater taxpayer spending on quangos like itself.

Good to see a sense of humour is still alive and well, albeit black humour. [Am I allowed to say black?]

last quango in paris said...

Another story that could quite happily sit under the all-purpose title: "Give me more!"

The tabloids could go for the more simple "Moar!"

Bucko said...

I would like to choose not to work, however I suspect they just mean women with kids.
I think me and Mrs Bucko should get a whacking great tax break for choosing not to have kids.

Macheath said...

There's a horrible twisted logic at work here.

If there were no indigent, feckless or idle parents out there, a vast horde of these quangocrats and their minions would be out of a (well-paid) job.

Therefore, the poor should be encouraged to breed as much as possible...

In fact, this man could be the poster boy for their campaign.

Jiks said...

I think we should give those who choose not to work, or "work" for fake charities, more assistance.

Give them tickets to South Georgia, a fishing rod and Lonely Planet guide and let them set up a new nation there. Then they can avoid being offended and oppressed by those of us who selfishly pay our own way.

Anonymous said...

make the jobless on benefits do the work that most find intolerable, like cleaning up discarded chewing gum or painting over tags on public walls (leave some of the more artistic graffiti like Banksy, mind). take children from parents that can't afford to keep them then put them to work while they are educated in a safe environment until someone who can afford to keep them adopts them. give any charity corporate tax breaks but only allow them to survive, or not as the case may be on donations from private sources, if the tax payer wants to give to a charity of their choice they are perfectly capable of making their own donations without any help from the government. finally sterilise women who repeatedly get pregnant without any independent method of financing their choices.

Anonymous said...

Marriage is a fairly useless institution, it guarantees nothing and seeks largely to pacify people of faith because their god and fellow believers are generaly full of fear and hate that they project onto others unless everyone else submits to their demands. A successful family is not dependant on tax breaks or married parents but the attitude of the parents and how that is manifested in their children. The state has little or no moral responsibility in a child’s upbringing however it does have a duty to protect and nurture those in its care and prevent me and the rest of society from being burdened with the consequences of feckless women who replicate like the human race is about to end. And yes I know it generally takes a man and a woman to replicate but the control is most firmly on the woman’s side of the equation. Btw if you want to get married or are in fact happily married, good for you, I suppose its one excuse for a party and a nice holiday but no woman has ever hated me enough to give me my diamonds back when we divorced, fancy that!
when feminist crackpots come out and publicly state bitter and twisted comments especially in the context of their job, arrest them, prosecute them for inciting sexist hatred and send them to a male prison along with false rape accusers.

Anonymous said...

bit tough init?

Anonymous said...

oh, while i'm at it, send anyone incapable of supporting themselves financially back to their country of birth with a few quid in their pocket regardless of the state of that country because while we have countries and we subscribe to one or the other then people born in those countries should be supported by their country of origin. if their country can't or wont, tough. while we are incapable of supporting and defending our own country wtf is it our responsibility to fail in trying to support the human race? its not racist to accept England is incapable of sorting out the worlds problems, and it is particularly stupid to think that allowing any fuckwit through the door is a good idea.

JuliaM said...

"The fact that Gove has just switched the funding to a free schools fakecharity headed by some Tory busybody is probably worth mentioning though."

Oh, indeed. Did we think they'd be so very different? Not me, sadly...

"Couldn't be that most of us only work because we have to and hate scroungers because they don't have to suffer our pain, could it?"

You may well be onto something there! I'm always a little suspicious of lottery winners who voew to carry on working because 'it won't change my life'.

What the hell are they doing the lottery FOR, then..?!?

"Another story that could quite happily sit under the all-purpose title: "Give me more!""

Indeed! At least they aren't threatening doom and despair and disaster if they don't get it. Unlike the police, NHS, probation officers, etc...

"In fact, this man could be the poster boy for their campaign."

I wouldn't be surprised to see the social work brigade erect a statue to him, somewhere...

"make the jobless on benefits do the work that most find intolerable, like cleaning up discarded chewing gum or painting over tags on public walls..."

That would require an army of further quangos to oversee, though..

Anonymous said...

or employees from the jobless centre