Morally Bankrupt

Morally Bankrupt 

 “Each one of the three main parties, they should be ashamed with their level of moral bankruptcy……………”


I was debating with a friend just how important technologies are to people with disabilities, I wanted others to note that many times people with significant disabilities are unable to access their environment, their community, their society, that poses no barriers to other people in their everyday lives. Therefore it is essential to have high-speed broadband, Skype, Twitter and other technologies as this is how some of us engage with the world, it allows us to leave our homes on a ‘virtual’ basis and relate to the outside world as fully as technologies allow at this stage. I cannot express how important such technologies and facilities are to people such as me, it means I can engage with employees, in real time, and so utterly needed that I think people with significant disabilities should have technologies such as broadband, tablets, Dragon Software, etc., funded as part of their quality of life. I didn’t find any objection to my rhetoric when the news came on and I was distracted (I often felt that if I had been a teenager nowadays I would be put on Ritalin as I do have very limited attention, very limited indeed!).

The debate on the news was about the “Living Wage” should be £7.45 per hour and how many Councils and the Labour Shadow Deputy Chancellor saying we should name and shame the big companies that  don’t support this ‘living wage voluntary scheme’. Well it just doesn’t make sense, is it a living wage or isn’t it? If the argument is that it is the ‘living wage’ people require, then surely you should name and shame all companies not paying it, but the Shadow Deputy Chancellor said it was ok for “SME” (small to medium enterprises) not to pay the £7.45 if they couldn’t afford to. So is it the ‘living wage’ or not, as I just don’t get why she was differentiating. Don’t get me wrong, I think scale of profits some of the big companies are making are quite obscene, but you just can’t have a it both ways. She was adamant it didn’t have to apply that SME’s. When asked should it be law as the current minimum wage is enshrined in our statutes, she faltered and changed the subject, it was really confusing.

I respect all those that do give this £7.45 as the minimum wage, power and respect to them, but they are missing the elephant in the room. Most people on minimum wage have Working Tax Credits to top their wage up, and therefore for every penny more they get, they will lose the exact same amount in Working Tax Credits or other benefits. So it is nonsense, complete point scoring with no depth, did no-one in Labour think this through?!?! I did wonder if they wanted to make a real difference then they should legislate for the £7.45 being the minimum wage (and wait for the roar of protests from SME companies and the slaughter as many go bankrupt) but add into the legislation that the increase should not be at the expense of reclaiming benefit in any of its forms. Then you make a real difference to the public and to the economy, lifting many many families higher out of poverty, although unemployment would rise from small businesses who just could not afford this. This seemed far too complex for some MP’s to grasp or think through even at an elementary logically level. Most people working on minimum wage are on top up benefits you plonks.

But don’t think Labour are alone with confused thinking and base level logic applied to complex policies – hell no, the Conservative are in hot pursuit of nonsense policies award. Just one for example is this debate going on about capping the support families get to two children only, sounds good and simple doesn’t it, but that’s because it is incredibly complex and they don’t want to tell you. So let’s look at this a little bit closer:

  1. Is it retrospective to include families currently in receipt of benefit for all their little darlings? They aren’t sure yet!
  2. What if the family has a child and then the mother has twins?
  3. What if you are fostering children and more than two – which is often the case?
  4. Does this apply to adoptions too?
  5. What if you have two single parents who both have two children, as loan parents receiving full benefits for their children, and then get together, does that mean they lose out?
  6. If so, which two loses out?
  7. Is it right to legislate to financially cap how many children someone or a couple can have, as that’s how many will perceive it, a form of birth control?
  8. Why should the State support large families or why shouldn’t they?
  9. If people can’t afford kids why are they having them but what if they are accidents or as a result of religious requirements not to use birth control, or result of abuse, rape, etc?
  10. Does it affect IVF treatment where multiple child births are common?
  11. Are the conservatives in reality suggesting people should have pregnancy terminations if someone/couple becomes pregnant with third child?

The whole blinking thing is a minefield of morality issues verses financial logic, verses State interference, verses a vote winning, etc., etc. But what if, just if, the parents are under 24 and have 3 kids and find themselves out of work, which, let’s face it, is not beyond the bounds or possibility in this current economic environment. They will not be allowed to have housing support and they will be capped on any support for their children. Doesn’t sound fair does it, but if it happened to one of the Cabinet (which hopefully they will at the next election) they wouldn’t give a hoot being millionaires, but to the young family, well simply put they would be homeless with three young kids to support, even though they were yesterday a family working hard to get through each week.

So once again the people that will really feel this policy are the children that go hungry, don’t have enough heating, aren’t clothed properly, what did they do wrong? Cynics within certain parties would say who cares, it cuts the bill and children don’t vote, parents below the poverty line don’t vote, so attack the most vulnerable – echoes of ATOS in my opinion. But don’t get me wrong, I don’t think people that cannot support their children should be having children, absolutely not, but once they have the children our society must be compassionate, act morally, act in Christian values of supporting the most vulnerable, NOT shrug the political shoulders and say, “not our problem” because it absolutely is. Children are the responsibility of society to protect, and Governments are the representation of society’s morality and will, children that come into this world must be protected, they didn’t not choose to be here, they must be safeguarded, and if that means monetary support so be it.

Universal child benefit is also up for grabs too re capping, but they have no plans to remove it from millionaires – madness, complete madness, and I am, or that should be, was, a Conservative but now I just cannot stand the policies they are enacting. They have no plans to remove bus passes or other benefits from over 65 millionaires, but they are more than happy to hurt and destroy the lives of the most vulnerable, whilst protecting huge corporations and the richest in the country. It just is    N O T   R I G H T,   they have become    M O R A L L Y   B A N K R U P T ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Liberal Democrats sanctioning £360 million to designing, just designing, the trident replacement. Yep the anti-nuclear campaigners going all the way back to the 1970’s, are now part of the Government that sanctions new nuclear weapons, like the world doesn’t have enough – total flipping hypocrites, just goes to show power corrupts totally. This is in the same week that they announce they need another £10 billion off the Welfare State budget (benefits), but yet there is money for nuclear weapons!!!!! M A D N E S S ! What are you doing, can you not see what you look like, and Lib Dems you should be ashamed, you are complicit in you quietness about this policy of replacing Trident. Only a couple of years ago you would have scream loud and passionately in your anti-nuclear rants, but now you don’t even have the right to wear the smallest of C.N.D. badge you hypocrites!

And if the above wasn’t bad enough, then there are rumours of a serving MP being on that blinking ‘Help I’m An Idiot & Dork, Get Me Out Of Here!’ I hope if this serving MP is on it she resigns as I don’t see how eating grubs and worms is serving your country in the highest office as a member of our royal Parliament. Bet you didn’t mention your desire to get down and dirty in dingo dodo when campaign for you constituents’ votes. “Hey vote for me, and I will sod off, go and demean myself and my status by representing you in Australia in a appalling bog, where I will be totally humiliated and show you how ridiculous I am on your behalf.” Somehow I don’t think she would have got many votes by saying she wants to skip Parliament and her duties that the tax payer are footing the bill for, and “live in my own filth until I annoy people enough to get voted off”.



Jonathan Wade

Smiling Cat Ventures and Innovations Group



Smiling Cat Ventures Ltd (

Innovative Minds At Work Ltd (

Moments in Time Ltd (

Innovative Business Consultancy Ltd (

Systems of Equality Ltd

Passport to Care Ltd (Social Enterprise – Not For Profit)

Spiritual Inclusion (Social Enterprise – Not For Profit)

Disability In Business Centre (in development)

Additional Information can be found at: