The trouble with the “spin” tool – as used by the political elite – is that no matter how well worded or plausible the delivery of the “good-news”, sooner or later light will be shone on the real reason for the latest new government proposal.
When Tony Blair and Gordon Brown wished to create some good news, such as a reduction on income tax from 22% to 20% they conveniently forgot to mention that it would be paid for by losing the 10% tax rate. This meant that the income of some of the poorest people in Britain went even further down the slope, and even after an ill-humoured attempt at putting the damage right, it still remained in part as a further handicap for people who needed it least.
Moving to today, it seems the coalition has watched and attempted to learn from Blair (although I fear they have not watched closely enough). I speak of the much vaunted new deal for pensioners whom we are told will now benefit from a new simpler deal in which they will get £155 a week way in the future – in return for being short changed now by a rise in VAT and a change from the fair-way of calculating their yearly increase (that being Retail Price Index) to a new and unfair calculation (being Consumer Prices Index).
As with Blair’s dodgy deals, the devil is in the detail – it seems that the date of implementation for this scheme is to be four or five years in the future, but only the new pensioners of that year, 2015/16, will benefit from the new weekly sum. All the existing pensioners – who I am forced to assume must be judged less worthwhile people than the new lot – will be staying on the old (and supposedly too complicated version) up to the point where they finally drop off the perch.
For my part, being one of the less worthwhile bunch, who over the last five decades was never afforded any indication, either by reduced contribution or written notice that I had only qualified for the UK-Lite pension plan, take great exception to this biased and discriminatory plan, but not as much exception as I would have taken were I one of the brave souls who have in days now gone by, that are apparently quite forgotten, also risked life and limb in defence of this country.
I think you need to look at this one again gentlemen (along with the others you haven’t got quite right). Also your justification for this unreasonable change, at the final shout, is not even being met.
C. G. EASTWOOD
HALIFAX ROAD BRIERCLIFFE