A disgruntled, disenfranchised 17-year old trying to be funny takes on the government...
"...rebuild the economy, unlock social mobility, mend the political system and give people the power to call the shots over the decisions that affect their lives."
That is, according to The Coalition Documentation of 2010, what the UK's current Con-Lib Dem government should probably have achieved by now. With just five months until it will/will not be replaced in the 2015 general election, perhaps it is time to match this rhetoric with the non-rhetorical question of: have they?
After all, the more pertinent issue to consider when deciding who to vote for should be the government's record, and not - as the media sees fit to imply - the aesthetics of the opposition leader's consumption of bacon f***ing sandwiches.
[I always think that asterisks lend swear words such grandeur - a grandeur far removed from Ed Miliband tongue-tussling with food stuck between his teeth.]
This particular blog post covers rebuilding the economy (the other bits have been covered, equally badly, here and here).
Ipsos MORI reports that, in December 2014, 33% of Britons viewed what is done about the state of the nation's dosh/wonga/quid/spondulicks/er, money as 'the most important issue facing Britain today' - a higher percentage than any other issue. So this is the important one.
Concentrate for this bit. I didn't.
Recently, George Osborne bragged in his 2014 Autumn Statement that Britain has enjoyed the highest growth of any G7 nation in 2014. True, the country's GDP grew by a staggering/gargantuan/exorbitant margin of 0.7% in the year that celebrated:
the 2014th anniversary of a baby being born in a barn
and the centenary of some posh bloke being shot in Sarajevo.
But what does that mean? How has a number next to a % sign improved people's actual finances?
One need only look at the typical teenager to see that 'growth' does not necessarily mean
'improvement'. I know quite a lot of six-foot d***heads. Including myself.
Well... I'm actually 5'11", but shut up.
If one were to paraphrase Ed Balls, the shallow (Freudian slip?) shadow Chancellor, one would equate the government's economic record to a load of Ed's surname. 'There is a cost-of-living crisis,' he often claims. Though the figures are a tad outdated, it is true that in the year to April 2014, average earnings increased by 0.7% to inflation's rise of 1.8%.
This means that wage growth lags behind inflation.
This means that people are earning more but their wages are worth less.
This means that buying luxury items is becoming ever harder for Britain's low- and even middle-income families.
This means that there were a lot of households devoid of Playstation 4s at Christmas.
This means that Britain will get flooded again this winter - flooded by children's tears. And, admittedly, by the uninhibited imposition of maize crops and housing onto floodplains.
Basically, at the most pathetically simplistic level, Britain is doing 0.7% better, but most working Britons are doing 1.1% worse. The Conservatives/Lib Dems talk mostly about the former, whilst Labour points its finger firmly at the latter.
Here are some more lies/damned lies/statistics to consider...
Over one million people currently use food-banks; in a 'rebuilt economy', would this happen?
Britain's unemployment rate has dropped by 2% since 2010; is this a sign of a 'rebuilt economy'?
I'd highly recommend that you specifically do not base your vote on what you've just read. Read something else, for parliamentary democracy's sake, to complement this thinly-researched attempt at political commentary, before crossing any boxes.
I personally recommend reading an equally weak analysis of the government's attempts to unlock social mobility at thehumanwritesact.
But then, I would say that. I'm biased. Just like most of this post.