Have you been on the Blue Nun again Andrew?
Well ‘Ard: Tell me Mr Forty, you say you want to nationalise the water companies where will the money come from?
bill40: Well, Mr Well ‘Ard I would use the public purse to transfer one asset cash for another asset class a company. The transactions net to zero on the national accounts. This would also create a revenue stream that could be invested in higher water standards, cleaner beaches and to build a national pipeline to get water to where it’s needed. Hell we could even make London’s water drinkable rather than that chlorinated semi sludge that comes out of your taps now. I don’t care about London because I’m sensible enough to live where the water is actually potable but I am nice to them. There is no natural market for water it is better in public hands.
Mr Well ‘Ard: You say Mr Forty that you will reverse the benefits cuts, who’s going to pay for that?
bill40: I would reverse these cuts on principle, the money taken out of the economy shrinks it and hurts businesses. The cuts against the disabled are illegal and the UN is investigating the UK for human rights abuses as a result. Placing the burden of repairing the damage caused by the banks is just plain stupid, they can’t afford it and people are dying.
Mr Well ‘Ard: So are you denying that there are not savings to be made in the benefits system?
bill40: Yes there are Mr Well ‘Ard let’s take pensions, yours perhaps? Pensions are a benefit and the BBC’s are publicly backed and updated according to RPI consistently the highest measure of inflation. Pensions are a benefit too why should others be frozen?
Mr Well ‘Ard: (Goes in for the kill). But you still haven’t said who will pay, either taxes must be raised or the deficits and debt balloon risking bankrupting our great nation, which is it to be?
bill40: Calm down dear our country cannot go bankrupt as I have already explained. Current policy is to shrink the economy with cuts whilst expecting the private sector to rack up record levels of debt and shrink their savings. To prevent this the government must run a deficit to allow the private sector to repair its balance sheets. This is called the Sectoral Balances. As luck would have it that’s the subject of my next blog, do have a read.
Mr Well ‘Ard: So taxes must rise then eventually to pay for all this isn’t that true?
bill40: Yes taxes will have to rise because that’s the only way to run an advanced economy, both parties are agreed on this and the Tories actually tried to raise them. Third world levels of spending lead to third world living conditions. Take housing as an example, if the state fails to ensure adequate housing the market solutions are insane commutes, overcrowding, slums and shanty towns in that order. At the moment we have massive market failure and rampant inflation within the sector. This bubble is unsustainable and costing billions to temporarily support.
Mr Well ‘Ard; Ha Gotcha! Are you telling me that you are asking people to vote for the Forty Party and have the price of their main asset, their house, reduced in value?
bill40: (gulps for air) Well sort of yes. I’d allow councils to start building again and heavily tax vacant land that could be used for housing. There is evidence that the big builders are land banking to keep prices up and profits boosted, it’s their job to do that. The fact that far from deterring them in these practices we subsidise them with billions of pounds such as Help to Buy. House prices must be gradually reduced to fend off the inevitable crash.
Mr Well ‘Ard And cast are by this time so impressed with my answers they have donned cat ears and are on all fours crawling around me and purring.*
*Disclaimer: Any of the above four but especially Andrew O’Neil would rip me a new backside but it’s my blog and I’m allowed the occasional flight of fancy. It is of course the direct that bothers me, why are all the interviewers asking the same questions based on the same assumptions? The only exception to this I can think of was Paxman asking Theresa May how she planned to compensate for falling revenue due to immigration cuts. Apart from that it’s all about ill informed economics and big business agenda. God help those providing answers that don’t sound Well ‘Ard enough.
This manifestation of insanity reached its peak over the question of trident. Jeremy Corbyn was quite clear, he could see no circumstances under which he’s drop the bomb. No example was given to him of instances he should use it because none exist. Theresa May was very firm, of course she’d use the bomb because she’s Well ‘Ard. In fact she said she would kill 100,000 men, women and children in just one word. “Yes”. Michael Fallon went one better (if that’s possible) by assuring us the UK would authorise a first strike. What?!? Am I meant to be reassured by this? You don’t have to be a tree hugger to consider that there may just be a few tiny environmental draw backs to dropping the bomb. Then there’s the risk of revenge, other nuclear powers may be a tad uncomfortable with lunatics launching nuclear bombs willy nilly and bomb us. This argument was put to bed in the 80’s by Yes Prime Minster, you wouldn’t really drop the bomb. Yet somehow this was spun as Theresa May as being firm, rather than bat excrement insane. Why are these blowhards not challenged? They fall to pieces when they are.
I find it strange that nobody ever seems to ask where the money for bank bail outs came from. Did we tax first to spend that money? Do we have a running tax to finance war, we always seem to be able to afford that. Then there’s Trident costing billions and utterly useless except as a bluff. It’s Pascal’s Wager, the consequences of betting we won’t use the bomb outweigh are too severe to make the bet.
Come on presenters can you vary your questions just a little? National debate will be all the better for it if you do.