temptible" and insists that he's "done nothing wrong" and "broken no
rules". That being the case, why has he now resigned as chair of the
Intelligence and Security Committee and announced that he'll not
of £67,000 per annum (not counting expenses and all the usual
perks) by the British taxpayer, he also says he has an unbelievable
amount of free time to read or go walking, which surely only means
that he's paid a disproportionate recompense for what is essentially a
part-time job. However, it is his arrogant sense of entitlement which
is truly nauseating, believing he is worth more than the immense
salary he already receives. (The very one that he seems to
think no one pays him.)
He's typical of the self-important, out-of-touch politicians
who seek to deny the poorest in our society the relatively meagre
amounts they rely on to get by, while lining their own pockets with as
much as they can stuff into them; who try to force the unemployed and
the ill into jobs that either don't exist or are so poorly paid that it's not
worth taking them. "Is it right that an unemployed person should get
more money than someone who works?" they disingenuously enquire.
Well, ignoring the fact that most unemployed people don't, the answer
of course, is "No!" However, in the relatively few cases that do, it's
not because benefits (in the main) are too high, it's because wages
are too low. If they want to end the so-called 'benefits culture'
then why don't they try coming up with some policies that
create jobs which pay a decent living wage?
As disgraced Malcolm Rifkind has so ably demonstrated,
they're far more concerned with creating over-paid jobs
for themselves. Anyone else sick of the lot of them?
And their latest 'wheeze' is to try and make people work
30 hours a week for their benefits, which is nothing other
than slave-labour. If they expect folk to work for 30 hours,
then they should pay them the going-rate for doing so.