The curse of Letwin

August 1, 2011

The Conservative Government REALLY need an Alastair Campbell. Desperately. They attempted to secure a Campbell figure to head their PR team, with the [sarcarm] brilliantly managed and executed appointment of Andy Coulson.[/sarcasm] It would take a top PR team most of the day, every day, to ensure Oliver Letwin, the Minister of State for Policy, keeps his grotesque mouth closed whenever someone from the press is around, because he betrays the idea that the Tories have change, or modernised, since, well, around the 19th Century. Letwin is a left over from a group of Etonians who clearly and misguidedly believe they have a right to rule by way of their heritage. It is an arrogance that the Cameron Government will never shake, because they are the living embodiment of that privileged arrogance. They have disastrously inter-breeded this mentality with a Thatcherite economic mentality that is as dangerous as it is out-dated. His disastrous face, screams contempt for anyone who isn’t Oliver Letwin. He is a PR disaster. It is one of the many reasons (another being massive incompetence and dishonesty – which we’ll come to later) that he was overlooked when the Tories were searching for a leader. Hell, they even chose Iain Duncan Smith, does anyone remember him?

With a face looking as if someone had created him out of the concept of pompous twat, Oliver Letwin has once more allowed the Conservative Party mask it currently shrouds itself in, to fall, revealing a Thatcherite brigade just as frightening and dangerous as their 1980s counterparts.

Letwin had told a consultancy firm, that his proposals for public sector reform should instill:

“some real discipline and some fear”

He said this, because he believes the productivity of the public sector has failed. It is a strange comment and angle to take, given that the private sector has spent the past four years creating sovereign debt crises’ everywhere it goes. Productivity is very difficult to measure in the public sector, because the public sector is not about creating anything. Investment in the public sector has seen waiting lists for operations down year on year since the last Tory administration. Teaching standards are also up. The public sector does not “make” things. So talk of productivity in comparison to the private sector, is futile and misleading. It strikes me as wholly patronising that a man such as Oliver Letwin has the balls to lecture public sector workers – teachers, doctors, nurses, firemen – on what “real discipline” is. They are not children. They also did not claim public money for ludicrous items like mortgage interest payments. Also, the public sector hasn’t spent twenty five years creating a system of easy credit to boost the excessive pay of CEOs and Managing Directors, whilst the average worker saw overall increase in wages? And then when the company or bank failed miserably, the “fear” was THAT pertinent that the CEOs are given massive pay offs and lovely big bonuses. All this, whilst the public sector is told constantly, and has been told constantly, from Thatcher, to Major, to Blair, to Brown and now to Cameron, that it is not good enough, that it must be modelled on a failing private sector built on squeezing productivity out through long hours, a mountain of stress, and all for less pay whilst the big boss is compensated for his little contribution to overall productivity with huge salary and bonuses; and that their jobs are always on the line. A private sector model should be as far away from inflicting misery on the public sector, as possible.

It isn’t the first time Letwin has revealed his hostility to those less fortunate. Earlier this year, he surprised and disgusted the most posh of Tories, Boris Johnson, by telling Johnson:

“We don’t want more people from Sheffield flying away on cheap holidays.”

– At least he recognises that the North suffered horrifically with the gutting of jobs and thus wealth during the Thatcher years. Though he seems to have suggested that it is perfectly okay for the wealthy Southerners to pay for expensive holidays and that holidaying abroad should be based on wealth. I expect he thought he was at home with Boris, and could reveal his true feelings, but sometimes posh Tory twats seriously misjudge the situation, and regret the fact that their well crafted public self has been set on fire by their real self. This seems to happen a lot with Letwin. And now on to why I referred to his as a hypocrite:

In 2005 Letwin used the phrase “Wealth Distribution” in a positive light! I know! I was shocked too when I first read it. A Tory, interested and supportive of wealth distribution? Surely not! Well, actually, not. 2005 was the year Cameron was trying to pose as being a “progressive conservative“, deeply contradictory term yet one he managed seemingly to work. Letwin clearly took on that contradictory term, by trying to fill out a left wing term with right winged substance in the hope that no one would scratch below the service. He said:

…….not by trying to do down those with most but by enabling those who have least to share an increasing part of an enlarging cake.

– In practice what this means is, a desire to scrap the top rate of tax for the richest, a desire to lower the Corporation tax rate to the lowest recorded level, a desire to allow companies like Vodaphone a get out of jail free card by writing off their tax debt, whilst at the same time cutting allowance for the disabled, the elderly, according to a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Letwin must be talking about the 16000 less police Britain will have after this Parliament; according to the leaks that the Guardian currently has; the Tory’s new director of policy Steve Hilton, suggesting abolishing maternity leave whilst also abolishing ALL consumer rights legislation. Just to reiterate….. this man, is the Nation’s DIRECTOR OF POLICY. Now i’m not saying these idiotic and deeply right winged ideas of Hilton’s are likely to become a reality. To suggest so would put me on the same wavelength as the manic Right Wingers who would constantly suggest that New Labour were about to ban England shirts and change the name of Christmas, or ban you from being white. Letwin must believe Hilton’s ideas will “enable” those with the least to a share of an increasingly large cake. Tories consider Hilton a genius…… not just because of his ideas (which aren’t in any sense a spark of genius) but also because he doesn’t wear shoes in Downing Street and they consider this “wacky”. In their defence, it is as wacky as most Tories are likely to see, given that they are born wearing business suits, slick back hair, and spend the next twenty years trying to hide the fact that their schooling experience is a plethora of homoeroticism cunningly disguised as a love of “Rugger“. It can’t have been too many years ago when gay and black people were described by most Tories as “wacky“. Hilton, like Letwin, is politically dangerous.

The reason why Letwin is hypocritical in his desire to do away with the idea that public money can actually do good, is because he used public money to claim over £80,000 for his Cottage in Somerset, in order to heat the place, empty the septic tank, £1000 in mortgage interest and most beautifully of all…… over £2000 to repair a leaking pipe underneath his tennis court. So much for “real discipline and fear“.

Either the Tory Party spend some time searching and investing in a decent PR figure, or they sew Oliver Letwin’s mouth closed, he is a liability to the Conservatives, and a liability to humanity.


Why the Big Society is a load of bollocks

February 14, 2011

I have taken it upon myself to write a bullet point list of why the Big Society is a load of bollocks.

  • It’s a Tory plan.

    In principle, is sounds lovely, and cuddly; a Country where everyone helps the little old lady cross the street, and the struggling girl trying to lift her suitcase up a flight of stairs, or a disabled man trying to reach food on the top shelf, or inviting a homeless drug addict round to Christmas dinner and letting him touch your wife’s breast. It all sounds lovely. But it’s a Tory plan. So obviously it isn’t all that it seems. Putting two and two together is not difficult, because this breed of Tory isn’t much better than the last breed at hiding their sinister motives.

    Tories and their supporters are notoriously unable to critique their dogmatically held economic principles, no matter how flawed or dangerous it is. They simply put a new mask on it, every couple of years. A rebranding. Putting sparkly bits on dog turd.

    Compact Voice, an agreement between the Voluntary sector and the Government, took London Council to court over plans to cut £10mn worth of funding. They won the right to a judicial review, after the court found that the plans to cut funding to 200 projects for lower socio-economic areas of London failed to meet statutory equality duties. So given that it takes a court order to promote a Big Society that the Government is apparently massively in favour of…. what is going wrong?

    First you must look at the current Tory leader. Margaret Thatcher. Actually, it’s a posher looking shinier version of the mad old witch, but it nevertheless, is Thatcher. Dogmatically gelling himself to out of date, unfounded economic principles that didn’t work last time, and wont work again. Economic principles that cause more misery than joy, and only work to enrich a few people; the same people who happen to be socially retarded bastards of the highest calibre.

    Thatcher famously said “there’s no such thing as society“. This is exactly what David Cameron is saying when he tries to promote his “Big Society”. The mask behind the motive, is that people will volunteer in their communities, rescue libraries, save post offices. The problem is that local communities are being drained of all resources.

    When you take the mask off, the choice is “run your library yourself, of we’re closing it down“. And that’s horrendous. It is no different to what Tories always attempt to do, it just has a new mask. It would seem that the “Big Society” is a clever PR stunt, to cover up the fact that the Government is taking money away from the public sector, washing its hands of all social responsibility, in order to fund a mass of tax cuts for the very wealthy. The evidence for this can be seen with the recent offshore Corporate tax rule change; the biggest change in its history. Public money is being taken away from your library, and given back to people who run a business in England, but store their profits elsewhere, and pay no tax on it. Not only has the offshore tax system been scraped, the Corporate tax rate will be dropped by 4% by 2014. Public money is being taken away from your child’s school, for purely ideological reasons, and given to the very rich in the form of tax cuts; the very same very rich people who happen to fund the Tory Party.

    Last year, George Osborne stood up in Parliament and told us all he was instantly getting rid of 490,000 jobs. Half a million people unemployed, in less than ten seconds. The Tory backbenchers cheered in joy. The Big Society is the tedious and futile hope that the voluntary sector will suck up the jobs that have been, and will continue to be destroyed by the Government. When millions are unemployed and in desperate need, the Government is washing its hands of them, and telling the rest of us to deal with it. We didn’t create this mess. The Financial Sector; many of whom donate to the Tory party, and all of whom are taking home a mass of money in bonuses this year created the problems.

    The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said:

    “In Scotland we’re already delivering the big society. David Cameron’s big idea simply describes a lot of what already happens throughout Scotland’s third sector, from active volunteers in communities across the country to excellent public services run by charities.

    “But government cuts are dangerously undermining our capacity to even continue the valuable work we were doing before the crash, never mind becoming the thriving third sector that Scotland so badly needs.

    “Right now we’re on a knife- edge. The local lifelines that so many people rely on face vicious cuts, leaving the most vulnerable without the support they need. It’s going to take more than rhetoric to save our services.”

    It is impossible to engage the Voluntary sector, when you are taking billions our of it, and giving a couple of million back whilst telling everyone you’re definitely funding it adequately. It is a joke. Most charity leaders don’t buy into it. They recognise that whilst Charity organisations face cuts of close to £5bn, plus the added issue of receiving less due to the scrapping of tax relief on donations, the promise of a couple of extra hundred million pounds, is minuscule. A £100mn “transition fund” is the equivalent of taking a loaf of bread away from you, handing you a slice of bread, and telling you to feed your family.

    In fact, the Office for Civil Society’s promise of an extra £470mn for Voluntary organisations over the next four years, during a Parliament of intense Council cuts, is nothing in comparison to £500mn over the past three years. The Charity Commission will also be required to cut its funding by 27%.

    Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, the Executive Director of the UKs leading voluntary and training service; “Community Service Volunteers” said:

    “So there are a lot of very worthwhile programmes – for example volunteers working in child protection as promoted by the minister for children – which are now under threat of closure.”

    Do not buy into the Big Society hype.
    It is not just a cover for public sector cuts, it is a cover to transfer wealth to a very narrow wealthy elite, through a mass of Corporate tax breaks.
    In plain, it is Tories being Tories.


  • The National Insurance Row.

    April 11, 2010

    The big news this week politically, is that a group of business leaders have signed a document throwing their support behind the Conservatives, over Labour’s plan to increase National Insurance. The group of businessmen signed a document calling for the 1% planned rise, to be scrapped. The news media are treating it like a huge coup for the Tories. The news that business leaders support the Tories, is being treated, like huge surprising news. Surely this is less interesting and surprising news, than Ricky Martin telling the World he is gay, about fifteen years after we all figured it out any way. In other news, Jim Davidson is still shit, the BNP are still racist scum, apparently a bear shat in the woods today, Hitler was a bit of a git, and the sun might rise sometime tomorrow morning according to latest reports.

    One of the business leaders who signed the document, is Paul Walsh. Walsh earns £3.6million a year as Chief Exec. of Diageo PLC, a huge wine and beer company based in London. It’s net income last year was £1,725,000,000. Now obviously, earning close to two billion pounds is not enough. A 1% N.I increase would apparently cripple them. Lucky for Diageo then, that they have a dedicated management team who do not really like to pay taxes. According to a Guardian report, Diageo over the past decade has paid a little over £43,000,000 in tax. That’s around £4,300,000 a year. In reality, they should have paid £144,000,000 a year. That equates to £1,397,000,000 tax loss. If you were to scrounge an extra few pound a week benefit payout, you’d be threatened with prison. Scrounge an extra £1,397,000,000 and you’re well on your way to being knighted for your services to “CREATING JOBS AND BEING ALL WONDERFUL!” That gap in the treasuries takings, according to the Guardian would take 20,000 households paying income tax to fill. So wondrous are Diageo, and so committed to the wellbeing of their workforce, that after posting profits of almost £2bn, they closed a Jonnie Walker blending plant which had been a community of Kilmarnock local historical institution, and made 700 people redundant. Around the same time, Mr Walsh’s salary increased.

    Another businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party, is Justin King, chief executive of J Sainsbury. The President of J Sainsbury, is John Sainsbury, Baron of Preston Candover, with a net worth of £1.3bn, he is a Conservative Party donor, and member of the Conservative Party.

    A third businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party is Simon Wolfson, chief executive of Next. Wolfson is a member of the Conservative Party and donated to David Cameron’s 2005 campaign, and named by the Telegraph as the “37th-most important British conservative.”

    A fourth businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party is Philip Harris, chairman and chief executive of Carpetright. Harris is a Conservative member of the House of Lords, and is worth £285,000,000. He is considered a close personal friend of David Cameron, and has donated money to the Conservative Party.

    Do you see a pattern forming?

    The Treasury expects unemployment to fall by a quarter of a million, next year, despite the 1% increase. And whilst Tory donating Businessmen have come out against the increase, most economists appear to be suggesting that the businessmen are wrong. The Times says:

    “Martin Weale, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, pointed to the last time NI rose, in 2003. Rather than cut jobs, employers responded by paring back the growth in wages.”

    The Tories claim that they will stop the rise, and instead cut £12bn of public sector waste. Apparently, that isn’t classed as attacking jobs. Even though, according to Professor Colin Talbot at Manchester University, Britain’s foremost academic expert on public sector efficiency, even £6bn would cause 120,000 job losses in both the public and private sector, because the Tories planned “savings” include hitting small private I.T firms. The business leaders don’t seem too bothered by that. Because, afterall, it doesn’t affect their huge salaries.

    Of course business leaders have backed the Tories. We’re all fully aware that a 1% rise in National Insurance is not going to destroy Britain in the way these big bosses say. It is the same rhetoric they used to attack minimum wage introduction legislation; businesses everywhere will go bust; riots on the street because poor people love big businessmen and don’t wish to be paid a minimum standard of wage in order to stay alive, if it means those poor businessmen can’t afford a new yacht; England (which will be renamed Ingsoc) will set on fire; Dorset will be completely submerged beneath a sea made by evil socialists; and gay people will rule the World, all because of minimum wage. In other words, fear tactics built on empty rhetoric. Because twelve years later, minimum wage is one of Labour’s greatest achievements.

    The letter says:

    “In the last few years, the private sector has improved its productivity by around 20%, while productivity in the public sector has fallen by 3%.”

    Not surprisingly, they didn’t offer any evidence to back that claim up.
    Firstly, if that is true, that’s quite an impressive statement from a conservative section of society toward a Labour government. (Although, i’m not sure how you actually measure public sector productivity, given that it isn’t a product based sector, nor is it profitable) Surely, that is indirect backing for Labour? Secondly, whilst the private sector may have improved productivity by 20%, but whilst wages have been kept low, bosses salaries, according to Incomes Data Services firm investigation, have risen 18.3% to now 150 times greater than the average employee. Sir Peter Bonfield CBE, FREng, C.U.N.T of BT saw BT share price go from £14, to £5, under his control. He then left BT with over £6,000,000 whilst thousands of workers lost their jobs. This was in 2002, before the recession struck.

    So wondrous has the private sector been over the past few years, it has brought the entire financial system to it’s knees, demanded bailouts from all of us, and those responsible are now living in luxury whilst their employees are struggling to find work and keep their homes heated.

    The letter goes on to say:

    “Cutting government waste won’t endanger the recovery – but putting up national insurance will.”

    When you’re in a position to be able to resist all government “waste” because you earn over £1,000,000 a year, you can say things like that, and continue on your deeply ignorant path in life. Many people rely on social services, that would be put under major threat under another Tory government. Of course, the huge salaries of the big bosses wouldn’t be under threat, and so the bosses don’t appear to care. It is obvious that under a Tory government, the way to cut the deficit will be to hit those who cannot afford to feed themselves the hardest, whilst the wealth of the very wealthy will be protected. That is the legacy of the Thatcher government. The business leaders’ priority is not the public good, nor is it maintaining the wellbeing of the Country that allowed them such obscene profitability at the behest of others (No matter how much they say a 1% N.I rise is a huge “tax on jobs”); their priority is handing a healthy amount of money over to the shareholders who actually don’t do any of the work that brings the wealth in themselves (Corporate Socialism, I call it).

    The idea is to create a business haven in the UK. And that’s fine. If it is supported by a top class public service and a decent infrastructure. You can go to a third World country and do business uninterrupted and deregulated to the extreme. You can be a real businessman. Use children. No National Insurance. No equal rights. Don’t pay too much out in wages. No work hour limits. Real Capitalism.

    The CBI, the guys who actively protested against the introduction of minimum wage, the guys who want students to pay far more for their education whilst they themselves went to University when it was free, the guys who suggested cutting any educational courses that they deemed to be “micky mouse”, said:

    “We applaud the decision by a number of Britain’s most senior business leaders to take a public stand against the planned rise in national insurance – which is a clear and unequivocal tax on jobs.”

    I would like to take this opportunity, to say just how much I despise the CBI. Thatcher killed off the Unions because they had too much power of the Government. Well, she opened the door for the CBI, arguably the most powerful union of them all, and they keep flexing their puss filled muscles every chance they get. Why are we listening to people who campaigned for banking deregulation, and a free-for-all attitude to banking? They should disgust us. They have damaged us far more than the Unions ever could. The very same people who are telling us how best to deal with the recovery, were the people who contributed to the mess we’re all in, in the first place. We were deceived by these people, playing with fake money, for years, and now they are running the show again? Has nothing changed?

    Growth is an interesting concept. Growth when it comes to the business World is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. Growth and “giving jobs” as is often the defence of big business. But what does this apparent wondrous philanthropy actually mean? Well, it means that the cunt businessman at the top wants to protect his millions, the shareholders who do nothing for the good of the company or humanity in general get a healthy pay cheque every so often, the workers are paid as little as physically possible, and the producer is paid even worse. We’re then encouraged through the constant raping of our minds to buy pointless shit we don’t need, purely to prop up businesses that shouldn’t actually exist, and buy another lovely house in a sea side resort for the business man who only uses it once a year and so contributes to the destruction of the once healthy and happy sea side town (See Beadnell in Northumberland for confirmation). I’m all for growth, when it extends the public good, feeds the hungry, and creates affordable drugs. Growth to me, does not equate to greed. I am not for a manipulated and diseased form of growth by big business, who then claim they are “creating jobs“. Growth, within the system that we live, equates to nothing more than a lovely big return on investment, regardless of the public good.

    These businessmen are not worried about their businesses. Their businesses are doing just fine. They are not worried about the little people, as proven with Lloyds group and over 10,000 unemployed recently whilst their boss makes more money than every before, they are also not worried about the deficit and the Country. They are worried about their own wallets. They want more. If they are seen to back the Tories, and the Tories win, you can bet a mountain of deregulation and further destruction of the public sector will follow. Another generation of people from poorer backgrounds who are taught they are worthless, and should resign themselves to a job at McDonalds.

    The problem is, the system failed. The private system. These top businessmen sucked it dry for all it is worth for years. They used their new found immense profits to pay workers as low as possible, keep the money away from producers, create offshore accounts to avoid tax, fund the Tory party, but on the plus side, buy a lovely new Mercedes. And now, once that gravy train failed, they have washed their hands of it, and will blame everyone else. Socialism, or lazy people, or Governments, or Unions. Business will never blame business. The Tories will never blame business. Business afterall, “give us jobs!!”. The workers, to these people, are dispensable and just cogs in machinery. Their lives are not important. I hope the entire stinking system fails miserably. I secretly hope for a workers revolt, in which expensive business suits are thrown onto bonfires and a form of Anarcho-syndicalism is proclaimed.


    We have exiled beauty….

    March 2, 2010

    “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”

    A stunningly imaginative and beautiful choice of words, straight from Ecclesiastes. Language that if written today, would become the wasteful mutterings of the unimaginative.
    George Orwell took the very same passage from Ecclesiastes, and to prove the point that i’m trying to make, he translated it into Modern English….
    “Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”

    Orwell was Left wing. He was Socialist (although, not in the practical sense, he was a scientific Socialist). He believed, and stated on many occasions in essays, that it is the job of the Left, to question society, to not allow corruption and lies to become common place. That real intellectualism is a product of the Left, because to be “Left” you have to be dissastisfied with the current “systems” and offer change, you have to think, you have to be Utopian and not settle for the notion that reality is unchangeable. Where as the Right, or “Conservativism” is just the opposite, and is what it states, Conservative, no reason to question, no reason to disbelieve what you’re being told. Orwell, was in short, great.

    He goes on to state that the modern use of the English language is similar to snow, in that it covers the truth, it blurs the outlines, and so is perfect for political and business talk.
    There are two problems I see with this modern use of language.
    1) It’s lazy. The quote from Ecclesiastes is a beautiful string of words. The use of metaphorical speech together with ease of flow, is incredible. It’s beautifully thought out and expressed. The point it makes it clear and it makes you want to read it over. The second, and recreated quote, as proven by Orwell, merely opens a book on popular phrases, and shoves them together. For example “element of the unpredictable” and “taken into account“. Simple phrases, we’ve all heard a million times before. Nothing new or provocative in the slightest. And that is exactly the point Orwell was making.

    The free market does not allow for such wonders of creativity. Books like Jordan’s autobiography top the charts every year, spilling the beans on her lugubriously uninteresting life. Because as a population is working longer hours, for less pay; the only leisure time we have, we spend on our Xbox’s or reading easy to follow but disastrous excuses for “literature”. It’s easy. We have no time for beauty. Beauty requires thought. Our society doesn’t like thought. It likes blind acquiescence. The plethora of literature that passes by unnoticed, is unnerving. And so where is the incentive to write and to contemplate the beauty of the imagery one can create using words that haven’t already been seen a million times before, why would they want to? Evidently, it is 100 times easier to pick commonly abused phrases out and weld them together. Phrases like “leave no stone unturned” that, when first uttered, were almost ingenius, but using them over and over, is laziness of it’s worse kind. Especially in a Nation growing in it’s sense of Nationalism, it would make sense to utilise the language of the Nation we so candidly defend, in the best way possible, rather than relying on pre-spoken phrases. You’re no longer a citizen of England, you’re a Robot of England. Your voice works, but your brain is disengaged. We could be a Nation of Thomas More, Shakespeare, Hemmingway, Byron. Instead, we’re men in suits rushing to get on the Circle and District line, desperately clinging onto the hope that we wont be late into the Office for the unfathomably boring Powerpoint Presentation the boss is putting on later.

    A tirade of idioms like “Take no prisoners” which seemingly posess no determinable meaning whatsoever, suddenly become common place. Because, we’re lazy with language. Language has been a artform of pure beauty for centuries. Existentialist Philosopher Albert Camus notes “We have exiled beauty; the Greeks took up arms for her” before pointing out quite rightly that: “We are ashamed of beauty. Our wretched tragedies have a smell of the office clinging to them, and the blood that trickles from them is the color of printer’s ink.” He’s fantastically right.

    2) Political talk manipulates modern language, in order to seem acceptable. When the Chinese robbed hundreds of their homes, in order to build the Olympic Villiage, it wasn’t described as theft, or robbery, it was described as “transfer of population”. Suddenly, theft is almost respectable. No one questioned it. If they’d have said “We’ve just evicted people from their homes, they had no choice, they now have nowhere to live, because, well, WE WANT MEDALS!!!!“, there’d have been outcry and public dismay.

    It allows phrases like “freedom” to appear. They never define what they mean by Freedom, similarly, they never define what they mean by Democracy, and yet “transfer of population” is fine when it’s in the pursuit of “freedom” and “democracy“. Freedom, when stripped bare (arrgggh, i did it, a useless common metaphor) , means the freedom to gain unimaginable wealth at the expense of the labour of others.
    Perhaps I’m not clear enough. An old couple, not so long ago, died together in their homes during the winter, as a direct result of fuel poverty. Not too long ago, E-On Chief executive was caught saying “Rising fuel costs, means more money for us hahahahaha“. Is that what Politicians mean when they keep repeating “freedom“? Why cloak greed behind a tirade of disingenuous language?
    Orwell calls Political Speech “The defence of the indefensible.” He’s right. Political language has to be vague, in order to advance the interests of what Chomsky calls the “two factions of the business party“; be it Democrat or Republicans, Labour or Conservative.

    Office talk, similar to political language; people in suits, using deeply clouded language to cover up their true meaning, is quite morbidly institutionalised now. It has embedded itself into the very economic core of society and so is not going to simply float away. You will often hear “We have a strong customer focus” instead of “we’re manipulating your thoughts, for profit“. You’ll hear “Our vision” means “our commitment to greed, is so strong, we’ll even right this clever web of words on business cards“. “Go the extra mile on this one“…. means… “from today, you have no social life, no family, no friends, you’re now utterly dedicated to making me money, I own you, bitch.

    The business world has a list. They have four categories, and they pick words from those categories, to make a meaningless bundle of bollocks. You can do this too, i’ll give you all the tools you need. One word from each category, and you are now, a businessman…
    ADVERB:
    Enthusiastically, Completely, Continually, Dramatically, Pro – actively, Assertively, seamlessly.
    VERB:
    Build, Enhance, Maintain, Supply, Restore, Create, Utilize, Promote.
    ADJECTIVE:
    World-Class, Multimedia based, Long Term, High Impact, Diverse, Competitive, Cutting Edge, Market-driven, High standards in.
    NOUN:
    Data, Resources, Leadership Skills, Infrastructures, Materials, Solutions, Benefits for all, Technology.
    There you go, congratulations, you’re now a businessman.
    If I owned my own Corporation, i’d go with “Dramatically utilise high impact infrastructures.” It’s meaningless, it’s the language of the idiot, but apparently, it means i’m “professional” so it must be right.
    The only way to combat such lack of imagination, such laziness is to think. Think about what you’re saying. Yes, in a way, the English language is forever changing. But the English language is also a tool for the individual to utilise, not to simply adhere to whatever the rest of society is doing. Even our Politicians of days past have been masters of language. Elizabeth I once proclaimed “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king”. Our politicians, are simply celebrities with buzz words and spun PR nonsense. Society is growing ever more pretentious with how it uses language.

    “Here may we reign secure, and in my choice To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell. Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. “

    It isn’t a case of using the correct grammar. It’s a case of refraining from pulling as many Latin inspired words out of a “How to sound intelligent” book as possible, and utilising the power and the beauty of the English language and it’s capabilities. That’s where the true genius lies. As shown in the quote above, taken from Paradise Lost, by Milton. Two simple sentences, exploding with power, beauty and genius.

    You do not need to use archaic lexis in order to combat modern English language laze, you just need to open your mind to the shear weight of words that can be used along side other words to create something as beautiful as…
    “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”