Blind

I went back for my second dentist's appointment today. While I was sat in the waiting room, I picked up a copy of the Times, which had the headline 'A million more people to pay 40p tax'. The article goes on to talk about the government's 'signature policy' to raise the tax-free personal allowance, which, of course, is laudable (and I think, although I'm not sure, comes from the Lib Dems).

The paper says this must be paid for by pushing more people into the 40% tax bracket and that there is a risk of a "backlash" from Tory MPs because the government is penalising "middle-class families already struggling with the rising cost of living".

Hello?

If there is one group of people - or class, if you like - who have borne the brunt of this recession, it is the less fortunate, the less well off. At the other end of the spectrum, the wealthy have enjoyed tax cuts. Those in between whilst, indeed, enduring the same rising cost of living as everyone else, have been largely left untouched. And let's not forget that a lot of them have enjoyed low interest rates for the last few years.

And now the Times is portraying those who only just about earn enough money to pay tax as being the reason that some people in the middle-classes might have to pay a bit more. Frankly, it's not going to put many of them in the 'heat or eat' situation. As far as I can see, it's a deliberate distraction, setting one part of our society against another, while the real villains keep a low profile. Why aren't we looking at the bankers? Or those who studiously evade paying tax? Why are there ten times as many government employees chasing the relatively low cost of benefit fraud when there is ten times as much money in lost tax? Why aren't the papers reporting that? Why isn't the Labour party shouting about it?

*deep breath*

So, I wasn't in the best of moods to have a load of fingers, hardware, lights and high-pitched noises in my mouth for the next hour and a half but I did cheer myself up afterwards by having a coffee with my friend, Kelvyn, who politely ignored the complex and cautious fashion in which I had to drink my coffee.

On the way back to the office, I took this photo of Blindbeck, which is rather quieter than usual due to the sudden lack of rain. A nearby sign says that it was probably described as blind because its source is "hidden in the rock fissures of Kendal Fell". It goes on to say that it marked the boundary between Kendal and Kirkland, and that traders whose goods did not meet Kendal's market standards would set up their stalls in Kirkland. It ends on a rather damning note saying "Kirkland thus developed a separate character from Kendal, still recognisable today". We never learn from history, do we?