Planets and Policies
Saturday evening I looked at the clock, 21:44, looked out at the sky, still light, streetlights just thinking about coming on. Then I remembered what I'd told you, Dear Reader, and went out to have a look-see at the western skies - ahses and clahds permitting. As it happened there was a thick bank of low cloud due west. Slightly north of west, and considerably above the ashes in between, shone out the new moon and above and to the right (north) of that the brilliant orb of Venus with, slightly higher and to the south, the pinprick of Jupiter. I do like it when forecast astronomical events are visible from round here. Even if I had to go stand in the middle of the road to see it. Fortunately at that time of evening all the motorists appeared to be elsewhere, possibly watching the televised Women's Football World Cup match? As 'twas I called H and we both stood there in the middle of the street watching the heavenly view.
I was going to look last night too, when the moon, Jupiter and Venus should have been in a straight line, in that order, but the clahd cover was thicker and we had to content ourselves with the projected view given by the Stellarium program. Maybe I'll try looking again tonight. Have to see what the cloud situation is like. Did you go skywatching over the weekend, Dear Reader? Did you see anything interesting?
Would you believe it? The government are planning £12 billion cuts in welfare. They're planning to take more from those who already have the least. Now I know things have been tight recently, there was a recession and all that but . . . Who was responsible for the recession? Whose nefarious dealings caused the crash? Was it those on welfare payments? Oh, no, it was Bankers getting above themselves and ever more greedy. They and their dealings brought about the crash. But do we hear the government planning to prosecute said Bankers? Do we hear them handing out penalties to the banks? Do we hear them planning to tax those who can actually afford to pay - and will still have more than enough money to live on, however much they may howl about being 'stung' and threaten to take themselves and their capital elsewhere.
Trouble is the UK now has an untrammelled Conservative government. When David Cameron says, "We're all in this together" the 'we' he has in mind are him and his rich (and possibly Banker) cronies. Not him and those on welfare payments or basic wages and zero-hours contracts. It was a great pity Labour couldn't organise a drinking session in a hop-based alcohol-production unit at the time of the recent election. They still can't, and I'm not sure those they've put up as leadership candidates are all that much of an alternative to the Tories anyhow.
It may seem almost Red (ie: Communist) to some Readers but I am all for the idea, and practice, of taxation according to abillty to provide services free at the point of need. And as a couple on a very reasonable salary, with no children (both grown up and living away) I don't see why we shouldn't pay taxes - provided they are used to look after those who have difficulty looking after themselves, whether by reason of disability or limited income. And provided those who are far richer than we are are also taxed according to their ability to pay.
I am not in favour of keeping whole families on benefits. It is healthy (self-esteem as well as self-worth) for a person to earn their own living, not to mention a living on which they can support their family. But that is the thing - it is important that those who work are paid sufficient that they can support themselves and their families. And it is important that those who cannot work, for whatever reason, are paid sufficient that they can support themselves and their families.
What is not on is to make cuts which adversely affect those 'at the bottom', and those struggling to remain above the bottom. Mr Cameron, sort yourself and your government out. Then go tax those who can easily afford it (yes, your mates) and look after those who can't. We live in a rich country. It is the twenty-first century. We shouldn't have people, certainly not people 'in employment', reliant on food banks!
David Cameron says he is trying to tackle the causes of poverty. Hmmm. One of those causes is the tendency of the rich to try and hang onto what they have regardless and to gather more. A fairer redistribution of wealth needs government intervention, only the present (largely Conservative) government isn't going to even think about doing that. They're more likely to redistribute wealth from the poor to the richest. Gah!
Y'all have a good day now!
I was going to look last night too, when the moon, Jupiter and Venus should have been in a straight line, in that order, but the clahd cover was thicker and we had to content ourselves with the projected view given by the Stellarium program. Maybe I'll try looking again tonight. Have to see what the cloud situation is like. Did you go skywatching over the weekend, Dear Reader? Did you see anything interesting?
Would you believe it? The government are planning £12 billion cuts in welfare. They're planning to take more from those who already have the least. Now I know things have been tight recently, there was a recession and all that but . . . Who was responsible for the recession? Whose nefarious dealings caused the crash? Was it those on welfare payments? Oh, no, it was Bankers getting above themselves and ever more greedy. They and their dealings brought about the crash. But do we hear the government planning to prosecute said Bankers? Do we hear them handing out penalties to the banks? Do we hear them planning to tax those who can actually afford to pay - and will still have more than enough money to live on, however much they may howl about being 'stung' and threaten to take themselves and their capital elsewhere.
Trouble is the UK now has an untrammelled Conservative government. When David Cameron says, "We're all in this together" the 'we' he has in mind are him and his rich (and possibly Banker) cronies. Not him and those on welfare payments or basic wages and zero-hours contracts. It was a great pity Labour couldn't organise a drinking session in a hop-based alcohol-production unit at the time of the recent election. They still can't, and I'm not sure those they've put up as leadership candidates are all that much of an alternative to the Tories anyhow.
It may seem almost Red (ie: Communist) to some Readers but I am all for the idea, and practice, of taxation according to abillty to provide services free at the point of need. And as a couple on a very reasonable salary, with no children (both grown up and living away) I don't see why we shouldn't pay taxes - provided they are used to look after those who have difficulty looking after themselves, whether by reason of disability or limited income. And provided those who are far richer than we are are also taxed according to their ability to pay.
I am not in favour of keeping whole families on benefits. It is healthy (self-esteem as well as self-worth) for a person to earn their own living, not to mention a living on which they can support their family. But that is the thing - it is important that those who work are paid sufficient that they can support themselves and their families. And it is important that those who cannot work, for whatever reason, are paid sufficient that they can support themselves and their families.
What is not on is to make cuts which adversely affect those 'at the bottom', and those struggling to remain above the bottom. Mr Cameron, sort yourself and your government out. Then go tax those who can easily afford it (yes, your mates) and look after those who can't. We live in a rich country. It is the twenty-first century. We shouldn't have people, certainly not people 'in employment', reliant on food banks!
David Cameron says he is trying to tackle the causes of poverty. Hmmm. One of those causes is the tendency of the rich to try and hang onto what they have regardless and to gather more. A fairer redistribution of wealth needs government intervention, only the present (largely Conservative) government isn't going to even think about doing that. They're more likely to redistribute wealth from the poor to the richest. Gah!
Y'all have a good day now!