Stupidity Cubed

Although many people in the UK hate Gordon Brown with a loathing I would describe as almost Scargillesque, virtually everyone I ever meet seems to kowtow to the idea that he is some kind of economic wunderkind. This is despite his theft of their pensions, his grandiose and hugely wasteful borrowing requirements for government consumption purposes, and his bombastic Marxoid claim to most of their income for most of the rest of their lives, to create a world of social justice; whatever the hell that is. This general awe as to the Chancellor's economic genius is to be expected though. All you need do is read any piece about the Chancellor's thoughts and planned actions and his economic idiocy is laughable; but it is always reported by the sychophants of the British press as holy writ. Take for example, the following story:

Chancellor's bid to boost women's pay

Let's Fisk this monkey for fun:

Gordon Brown is to unveil a multi-million pound boost for working women after new, Government-backed research uncovered a huge "gender pay gap".

So, a whole load of parasitic morons spent a couple of years living it up on our backs, I should imagine with endless comparative trips to all sorts of foreign holiday destinations, to check conditions in other countries. Let's be generous. Let's say this research, which simply told the government what it wanted to hear to try to gain more women's votes, cost the voluntary productive economy £10 million pounds in tax.

The Chancellor is determined to use next month's Budget to take urgent action to deal with what he sees as injustice in the workplace, and which is estimated to cost Britain's economy up to £23 billion a year.

Of course, whenever our masterful central planner pulls a lever, it always has an immediate positive effect, so whatever he does must be done urgently. I also wonder where they got this figure of £23 billion from? Personally, I can't decide whether they used a dartboard or the back of a fag packet.

The figures have been uncovered by the Women at Work Commission, whose chairman, Baroness Prosser, the Labour peer, will discuss the 40 recommendations in her landmark report with Tony Blair and Mr Brown at Downing Street tomorrow.

Oh Jesus. I wonder how much these useless bigwigs cost me each year in mileage expenses alone, never mind salary. And Forty recommendations? Wouldn't one or two do? I suppose to justify her probable hundred grand a year plus salary, the Baroness needs to come up with some heavyweight figure to make her Commission seem worth the price. Couldn't you have used 42 though, Baroness? Even I would have approved of the use of that particular number.

By the way, don't you think it's strange how these Marxoids, who so profess to hate class advantage, always seem so keen to take up the titles of the ousted ruling class?

Let's once again be generous. Let's assume this Commission only costs the productive voluntary sector £50 million pounds a year.

The report will claim that while girls outperform boys at school, this advantage disappears in the workplace, with the average woman's earnings 13 per cent lower than the average man's in full-time jobs.

Hmm. I wonder why? Could it be because, as a friend of mine said recently, "I never take on any women under the age of 45". As one who has seen the regulations covering the employment rights of pregnant women, and who has witnessed one or two businesses almost run into the wall because of the exploitation of these rights, I'm surprised it's only a 13% drop. I would've guessed a figure more like 30%, as the price paid for all of these rights. Perhaps the Chancellor lives the dream that all government regulations come without a price. Perhaps the Chancellor still believes in Father Christmas.

Women in part-time jobs earn 32 per cent less than those in full-time jobs and 41 per cent less than men working part-time, figures which suggest a glaring lack of quality part-time posts for women who return to employment after having children.

Hey, maybe this is because women like to balance their employment against their ability to rear their children, and like to balance work flexibility against their salary rates. How dare these women choose to do this! Perhaps the solution is for all children to be compulsorily reared in state brainwashing institutions for 12 hours a day, to enable their mothers to earn more tax for the government. Yes, that seems like the ticket.

The commission will claim that removing barriers that prevent women working in traditionally "male" jobs and increasing overall female employment levels could add between £15 billion and £23 billion to Britain's earnings every year.

By removing barriers, the Commission obviously mean create more regulatory barriers to female employment, thus making my friend stop employing women altogether. I did ask him, by the way, what he would do if the government ever came after him for his avoidance of employing women of child bearing age. "I would sack everyone," he said, "and move to Spain." Indeed.

And just where do these clots get this increase from? Personally, I would love to be able to wish into existence a measly £23 pounds, to pay for a slap up fish and chip supper, including a six pack of Heineken; but £23 billion extra? I suppose they've done it by aggregating all female salaries, and then adding in the 'missing' 13%. It seems the fag packet is back in operation again. Hey, why don't we just wave a magic wand and double everyone's pay overnight. That would make us all twice as rich.

Its findings, the Sunday Telegraph understands, will identify several key problems, including girls being steered towards "stereotypical" choices of subjects at school, the widescale "undervaluing" of women's jobs, the lack of training for women and unequal pay.

Oh no. We're back to the Marxoid Labour Theory of Value again, but this time mixed in with social engineering and socialism's stereotypical hatred of choice. Quelle Horreur! When given a choice in schools, girls are choosing to do girlish subjects, and boys are choosing to do boyish subjects; no doubt this is some kind of market failure, but I have the solution. We must abolish choice at all costs!

The commission will suggest better vocational training for girls, adapting current employment practices to cope better with women returning to work after giving birth, and seeking "exemplar" companies to help promote equality and opportunity for female employees.

More coercion, more regulation, more tax stolen from the productive voluntary sector to pay for this coercion and regulation, and in the end what will be the result of this intervention? Yes, that's right. The situation will be even worse, according to these numskulls, and the only solution will be yet more intervention.

And doesn't that phrase exemplar companies just send shivers down your spine. Political favouritism, cronyism, or just out-and-out plain state fascism anyone? No, let's introduce a new phrase for our government-favoured subsidised business friends; let's call 'em exemplar companies. No doubt my friend will get a new term too; Kulak.

Mr Brown is said by his aides to believe that the report highlights both "injustice and a clear economic cost to the country". He will use it as a basis for further action in this area - starting with schemes likely to cost several millions in new funding which he will outline in the Budget on March 22.

Oh my God, does this man's stupidity know no bounds? Yet more taxation wasted on this pet scheme, plus horrific new legislative intervention, plus lots more employers sacking everyone and moving to Spain. This man, our very own Sun King, is a veritable idiot.

These are likely to include a doubling of the number of skills coaches available under government programmes, focusing on helping low-skilled women. Taxpayer-funded support to businesses which employ larger numbers of low-skilled women, the "Train to Gain" scheme, will be boosted.

Sing along with me, to the tune of the Monty Python Spam song:

Waste, waste, waste, waste
Waste, waste, waste, waste

Imagine, with me, endless lines of tax collectors and endless lines of socialist government parasites sitting in cubicles brain-washing endless chickens as to the horrors of the free market and you will have entered the nightmare of my mind.

Meanwhile, Jobcentre advisers will be told to broaden their outlook when it comes to suggesting jobs for women to ensure they "do not simply move in and out of low-paid, low-prospects work".

Yeah, like Jobcentre advisers care. I once knew someone who, ahem, 'worked' in a job centre. I asked him what it was like. He said he tried to avoid going there as much as he could, and when he did go, he tried to spend as much time as he could on fag breaks.

But what the Chancellor will imagine is endless lines of eager apparatchiks in dark suits and red ties, clicking their polished heels together and smartly saluting his picture, when the word of God comes down the line from Whitehall. It's called cloud cuckoo land, Gordon. The staff in Jobcentres, particularly those poor schlepps who have to deal directly with the public, are too busy trying to screw the taxpayer over maternity and paternity rights and trying to retire early due to stress, on a full government pension, to worry about what anyone in Whitehall is telling them to do.

Mr Brown is currently focusing on his Budget as a way of setting out a financial benchmark for future years in which he expects to be prime minister, with Tony Blair still likely to step down next summer.

You know, I really want this clown to get voted in, so that when all the marble of the Reichs Chancellery comes crashing down around him, he'll have no-one to blame but himself.

Gordon Brown, L'État c'est moi, may be masterful when it comes to trying to prop up Labour's failing vote by boosting women's rights with propaganda and other spam, but when it comes to the generation of wealth, as opposed to the government confiscation and consumption of wealth, Gordon Brown is an ECONOMIC CRETIN. If we all keep saying it loud enough, maybe one day the message might get through. In the meantime I better start looking at house prices in and around Andalucia.