Firstly let me say that I am delighted to see that that you are now starting to tackle the deficit. And it is heartening to learn that, among your worthy goals, is a desire to get people working again, and off benefits. 'It's the poverty trap, you see', seems to be the message - the fact that some people are reluctant to work because they will lose most, if not all, of their 'entitlements' provided by the state if they take up gainful employment. Strangely, some of them would rather spend their time staying in bed until late, and going to bingo or down the pub during the day (with our money, of course), than having to slog off to work and toil hard like the rest of us.
Now I understand that there are many many people who are genuine victims of the 'poverty trap', and agree that something needs to be done about it. In fact, I think I have a solution. It's quite simple, really. You offer them a job (the able-bodied and fit for work ones, that is). And a local one at that (don't want them getting up too early). And if there aren't enough jobs, you create them - parks and open spaces that need cleaning up, public buildings that could do with a lick of paint (for those skilled enough to cope with that), mess on the streets to pick up, that sort of thing. And overnight, David, these people start to add value to society - as we all must during these difficult days.
And if some of these people refuse to work (the ones who are medically able to, of course), then you solve their 'poverty trap' another way - cut their benefits altogether. There will be no dilemma then, will there ? Like the rest of us, they will simply have to decide whether to go to work to earn some money, or stay at home and starve.
Now I know that this might seem harsh, and some will even accuse me of being politically incorrect for suggesting it David, but I'm only really sticking up for the disadvantaged in society - you know, the millions of people who, for years, have done their bit while others (not the sick or the lame, of course), stay at home and party at their expense. Yes, David, the true victims here are not those who may actually have to start to contribute to society, but the overworked, overtaxed, British public who have been supporting many of these people for decades.
And if you think that I'm exaggerating, David, then come with me to my local pub on a Saturday night. It's all there for you to see - the 50-something lady who's never worked (she had five children, you see, all by different fathers who didn't stick around). She's got no skills, but is an expert at bingo. In fact, she goes most days - and we are staking her. Then there's the guy who, because of 'a bad back', hasn't worked for 18 years. Strange how that back gets better when the disco starts, though. And the country is full of people like these - because we make it easy for them; we enable them.
I want to re-emphasis, David, that there are many genuine cases of hardship, brought about by real physical and mental problems. I get that, and I understand that our society has a duty to support people with these issues. But the time is here, David, to come to grips with the dependency culture that pervades these shores - get the lazy out of bed and onto the streets. And get the crafty out of the bingo halls and pubs and back into a job, so that they can actually pay tax, rather than just spend ours.
1. 'Compulsory work in this way is not a new idea. However, every time it is suggested it is shot down - and not by the politically correct, but by the devotees of Adam Smith, who claim that it would distort the market and prevent businesses benefiting from doing the jobs that the compulsory workforce would be required to do'.
2. 'The Labour government felt entitled to spend our money and, when it ran out, they borrowed more. And they were borrowing so that another bunch of entitled people could live the life of Riley'.