There must still be an element if innocence left in my bones - that I can still be shocked by the bare-faced effrontery of a politician like Danny Alexander, LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I’m still honestly shocked as he advocates (as a Liberal Democrat - the party they say that is the radical progressive party) forcing long-term unemployed people to pick up litter, paint schools or do public gardening. And then trying to argue these aren’t punishments - but ‘sanctions.’ No, no, no Mr Alexander - you can’t get away with that. The long-term unemployed will see these as punishments. And most of the public will too; the only difference here is that the public will divide into two groups - those that approve of the punishments and those that don’t. But punishments they are.
But it’s about teaching the work habit (they say). Then let’s find people work which teaches skills and knowledge. No doubt it’s easy jumping out of bed when you’re Chief Secretary to the Treasury (or a millionaire like most of his colleagues); what does he know about getting out of bed to get his hands dirty? (Being a press officer for Tourism doesn’t count.)
And there’s another aspect equally worrying. Don’t we have people who are paid to do these jobs? What is to happen to these workers - are they to lose their work because of the forced work-parties? Alexander couldn’t guarantee, in an interview, that none of enforced labour would be replacing paid workers . . . and he and his cronies won’t be able to either. They’ll see the headlines now when the scheme falls apart, so best make no guarantees.
What a shabby mob. We’d expect this from some of the hard-line Tories, but from the LibDems we don’t. Or at least we wouldn’t have; but we’re fast coming to know better. A recent poll had the LibDems as low as 9 per cent; bit of a blip, but here’s hoping it becomes more the norm.
Showing posts with label ConDem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ConDem. Show all posts
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Another piece of the Uni funding jigsaw
Michael Gove has at last announced the amount universities will be able to charge in fees - there is a cap of 9k per year. This is almost three times the tuition fees at present. Now we must look at the wrapping. There is a cap of 6k per year with the extra 3k per year chargeable if universities make efforts to attract students from poorer backgrounds. They’ll be no quota levels, but the Office of Fair Access (a QUANGO still in existence) will monitor universities and, apparently, will be able to force them to mend their ways.
Under the new plans students won’t start paying back their fees until they earn over 21k per year (a raising of that threshold) and will pay 9 per cent of their income; interest will be at an above inflation rate. We’re led to understand that students who pay back loans quicker will pay a penalty in lieu of the interest they won’t be paying. But, we also understand, students from well-healed backgrounds who can borrow from family and thus pay their fees in advance (no loan therefore) will be able to do so.
That’s most of the public school pupils, no doubt. (Have you noticed that Gove, in his quest for fairness in education, never mentions public schools? Oxford graduate in English, Gove, was, apparently, educated in a private school in Aberdeen, on a scholarship. His estimated wealth is around 1 million pounds.)
This increase in student fees is to cover the vast removal of funds by the ConDem government (no subsidy for arts and humanities teaching.) What will universities do now? Increase fees for arts and humanities courses? Or increase all their fees and cross subsidise? If this is the case the public subsidy issue becomes something of an accounting red-herring.
The system is, like so many of this government’s half-baked policies, going to be a mess left for others to sort out.
One thing that is certain is that some high-up university personnel will cosy up to Gove (ghastly thought.) Like Michael Arthur, vice chancellor of the University of Leeds; he’s chair of the Russell Group of universities. He told the BBC: ‘What this does is send a very loud signal that the government recognises the importance of higher education to the future of our country, its economy and our ability as universities to help the country out of recession.’ Nothing could be further from the truth! It’s to be hoped Leeds Uni students see this and let him know what they think.
All students need to keep fairly and squarely in mind that each LibDem MP, as part of their election campaign, signed a pledge against an increase in tuition fees. I say no more (until the next time.)
Under the new plans students won’t start paying back their fees until they earn over 21k per year (a raising of that threshold) and will pay 9 per cent of their income; interest will be at an above inflation rate. We’re led to understand that students who pay back loans quicker will pay a penalty in lieu of the interest they won’t be paying. But, we also understand, students from well-healed backgrounds who can borrow from family and thus pay their fees in advance (no loan therefore) will be able to do so.
That’s most of the public school pupils, no doubt. (Have you noticed that Gove, in his quest for fairness in education, never mentions public schools? Oxford graduate in English, Gove, was, apparently, educated in a private school in Aberdeen, on a scholarship. His estimated wealth is around 1 million pounds.)
This increase in student fees is to cover the vast removal of funds by the ConDem government (no subsidy for arts and humanities teaching.) What will universities do now? Increase fees for arts and humanities courses? Or increase all their fees and cross subsidise? If this is the case the public subsidy issue becomes something of an accounting red-herring.
The system is, like so many of this government’s half-baked policies, going to be a mess left for others to sort out.
One thing that is certain is that some high-up university personnel will cosy up to Gove (ghastly thought.) Like Michael Arthur, vice chancellor of the University of Leeds; he’s chair of the Russell Group of universities. He told the BBC: ‘What this does is send a very loud signal that the government recognises the importance of higher education to the future of our country, its economy and our ability as universities to help the country out of recession.’ Nothing could be further from the truth! It’s to be hoped Leeds Uni students see this and let him know what they think.
All students need to keep fairly and squarely in mind that each LibDem MP, as part of their election campaign, signed a pledge against an increase in tuition fees. I say no more (until the next time.)
Saturday, 30 October 2010
ConDem mess in the Universities
It’s been pointed out in this space before that the present ConDem government seem not to have thought through any of their policies. And it goes on.
To give IDS the benefit of the doubt, I accept that he thought long and hard about his reforms. However the way Cameron has implemented some aspects of them has more to do with news capture than anything else. Housing benefit and child benefit policies are both slowly unravelling to the point of fudging and tweaking.
But it’s the mess of university funding I would like to approach today. Universities have already found their way through one major cut in income and now face a second - the removal of all subsidy for teaching in arts and humanities subjects - which is to say virtually all subsidy in these disciplines.
The Government’s idea was that this should be replaced by increasing student fees; and here the current mess. The ConDems can’t even manage this process; I have, to date, heard three fee-levels floated; 12k, 9k, 7k per year. These figures leave out the ‘no cap’ possibility. It all sounds as if reporters are picking figures out of the air. Does the Government have no awareness of the effect on universities of this situation? Or don’t they care?
They certainly haven’t got their act together. They appear to be arguing that Universities will have to ensure entry across the social and economic range. But these are little more than weasel words when you’re busy erecting barriers against this.
I hear another option being raised; privatised universities or parts of universities. That would suit a Conservative philosophy very well; a true free market in which fees and teaching can find their own levels according to what the market can sustain. Perhaps they would like to see faculties hived off into private ownership and leasing, say, space and other support services from a university - what a nightmare.
In addition, why attack the arts and humanities like this? People with these qualifications go into the world and make valuable contributions too. Yes, we must encourage science and engineering, but we must support and value these other areas too; if not we shall quickly become a philistine nation. And arts subjects will become the preserve of the well-off . . . and there, perhaps, is the point.
There are some universities (like schools) that aren’t performing as well as they should. These must be pulled up to scratch or close. There are students (a few) who it would appear shouldn’t be at university - though it’s more likely they are not yet ready to be there. It would seem inevitable at this time that some universities will, rightly, close. But we don’t want to go back to is a time when a university education was only for a comfortably off tiny minority.
To give IDS the benefit of the doubt, I accept that he thought long and hard about his reforms. However the way Cameron has implemented some aspects of them has more to do with news capture than anything else. Housing benefit and child benefit policies are both slowly unravelling to the point of fudging and tweaking.
But it’s the mess of university funding I would like to approach today. Universities have already found their way through one major cut in income and now face a second - the removal of all subsidy for teaching in arts and humanities subjects - which is to say virtually all subsidy in these disciplines.
The Government’s idea was that this should be replaced by increasing student fees; and here the current mess. The ConDems can’t even manage this process; I have, to date, heard three fee-levels floated; 12k, 9k, 7k per year. These figures leave out the ‘no cap’ possibility. It all sounds as if reporters are picking figures out of the air. Does the Government have no awareness of the effect on universities of this situation? Or don’t they care?
They certainly haven’t got their act together. They appear to be arguing that Universities will have to ensure entry across the social and economic range. But these are little more than weasel words when you’re busy erecting barriers against this.
I hear another option being raised; privatised universities or parts of universities. That would suit a Conservative philosophy very well; a true free market in which fees and teaching can find their own levels according to what the market can sustain. Perhaps they would like to see faculties hived off into private ownership and leasing, say, space and other support services from a university - what a nightmare.
In addition, why attack the arts and humanities like this? People with these qualifications go into the world and make valuable contributions too. Yes, we must encourage science and engineering, but we must support and value these other areas too; if not we shall quickly become a philistine nation. And arts subjects will become the preserve of the well-off . . . and there, perhaps, is the point.
There are some universities (like schools) that aren’t performing as well as they should. These must be pulled up to scratch or close. There are students (a few) who it would appear shouldn’t be at university - though it’s more likely they are not yet ready to be there. It would seem inevitable at this time that some universities will, rightly, close. But we don’t want to go back to is a time when a university education was only for a comfortably off tiny minority.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Milliband must argue housing benefit policy in the round
Ed Milliband and his team are right to home in on the housing benefit policy Cameron is promoting. Of course he is; it’s terrible that thousands of people are in danger of being moved out to goodness knows where. And if anyone should think that’s scaremongering, note that some London LA are already booking the bed and breakfast accommodation far from their own London Borough.
But the arguments must be put with care and in-the-round.
Labour had tried to address the welfare bill, but with only limited success. We must be prepared with some solutions of our own, lest we be seen as simply attacking for the sake of attacking.
We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact, either, that the reason rents are so high is because landlords are making them high. A side-effect, if you like, of the free market . . . ‘benefit will pay the rents so let’s see what rents we can get away with.’
In addition, the public have to a huge extent taken on board the idea that people on benefit are scroungers living in large houses most of us couldn’t afford to live in. Milliband and his team must have a strategy to overcome this, to education the pubic to the truth (and not shy away from the fact that some people are milking the system.)
Cameron’s policy has popular support - almost certainly the main reason he won’t budge from it (Tory polling will indicate this.)
For us to win the argument will be hard to do - we don’t own newspapers. But unless this issue is taken on in the round we’re in danger of scoring a home-goal. We have to be smart.
But the arguments must be put with care and in-the-round.
Labour had tried to address the welfare bill, but with only limited success. We must be prepared with some solutions of our own, lest we be seen as simply attacking for the sake of attacking.
We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact, either, that the reason rents are so high is because landlords are making them high. A side-effect, if you like, of the free market . . . ‘benefit will pay the rents so let’s see what rents we can get away with.’
In addition, the public have to a huge extent taken on board the idea that people on benefit are scroungers living in large houses most of us couldn’t afford to live in. Milliband and his team must have a strategy to overcome this, to education the pubic to the truth (and not shy away from the fact that some people are milking the system.)
Cameron’s policy has popular support - almost certainly the main reason he won’t budge from it (Tory polling will indicate this.)
For us to win the argument will be hard to do - we don’t own newspapers. But unless this issue is taken on in the round we’re in danger of scoring a home-goal. We have to be smart.
Friday, 22 October 2010
Cleggie loses it, as the Nasty Party bares its teeth
The dust begins to settle on the Government’s spending review and we see some interesting results - not necessarily where we would expect to. During Posh Boy George’s speech we shouldn’t lose sight of the ConDem MPs cheering welfare cuts; the Nasty Party is back - they never really changed.
We can see this in other details - the kinds of thing that slip out because their attention is fixed elsewhere. What is IDS thinking of when he says unemployed people should ‘get on a bus.’ First of all, doesn’t he realise people do that? But I suspect his knowledge of buses is small, I can’t see him on a bus to his office. Secondly, he’s pretty inept not to realise that he would be dragging up the recollection of Tebbit’s infamous ‘on your bike.‘ But then we’ve always known IDS is politically inept.
Have many people realised that millionaire Posh Boy is changing housing benefit so that people under 35 will no longer be able to get housing benefit for a small flat. They’ll have to live in a shared house - though he dresses this up in silver words (to match his spoons.) So one of his 500k public sector workers, who’s, say, 32 and living in a flat, will, when losing their job because of these cuts, will also have to move. Charming.
And Prefect Cleggie is losing it. Before the election Posh Boy and Cameron were identifying the Institute for Fiscal Studies as a respected organisation. The IFS has identified the ConDem cuts as ‘regressive.‘ So Cleggie is now stamping his little feet calling the IFS methodology ‘complete nonsense.‘ He’s also saying that their definition of ‘fairness‘ (one of the ConDem over-used sound bytes) goes back to a time of Gordon Brown.
Cleggie is rattled; no doubt about it. A hissy fit at a think tank that disagree with you shows you are not really mastering your job. But he’s every reason to be rattled; his own person polling is in free-fall and a recent YouGov poll puts the LibDems at a new low of 10 per cent (Conservatives at 41 and Labour at 40.)
We can see this in other details - the kinds of thing that slip out because their attention is fixed elsewhere. What is IDS thinking of when he says unemployed people should ‘get on a bus.’ First of all, doesn’t he realise people do that? But I suspect his knowledge of buses is small, I can’t see him on a bus to his office. Secondly, he’s pretty inept not to realise that he would be dragging up the recollection of Tebbit’s infamous ‘on your bike.‘ But then we’ve always known IDS is politically inept.
Have many people realised that millionaire Posh Boy is changing housing benefit so that people under 35 will no longer be able to get housing benefit for a small flat. They’ll have to live in a shared house - though he dresses this up in silver words (to match his spoons.) So one of his 500k public sector workers, who’s, say, 32 and living in a flat, will, when losing their job because of these cuts, will also have to move. Charming.
And Prefect Cleggie is losing it. Before the election Posh Boy and Cameron were identifying the Institute for Fiscal Studies as a respected organisation. The IFS has identified the ConDem cuts as ‘regressive.‘ So Cleggie is now stamping his little feet calling the IFS methodology ‘complete nonsense.‘ He’s also saying that their definition of ‘fairness‘ (one of the ConDem over-used sound bytes) goes back to a time of Gordon Brown.
Cleggie is rattled; no doubt about it. A hissy fit at a think tank that disagree with you shows you are not really mastering your job. But he’s every reason to be rattled; his own person polling is in free-fall and a recent YouGov poll puts the LibDems at a new low of 10 per cent (Conservatives at 41 and Labour at 40.)
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
The F word is now common in politics
This article is going to be liberally sprinkled with the F word . . . two of them actually.
The word ‘flexible’ is coming to the fore in Conservative policies. Today we gather they are going to slash the budget for social housing. I’ve been involved in many policy meetings over the past months and one of the most common calls is for more social housing - decent housing at a price people can afford.
Cameron wants to reduce tenancy rights for social housing tenants - he wants a more Flexible system. Part of his argument is that people shouldn’t be holding on to a tenancy if they can afford to buy. Doesn’t this mansion owner realise that if people in social housing can afford to buy, that’s just what they do. We can see what his policy is aimed at; privately built houses with private landlords . . . free market economy, based on maximum profits for the landlords and as little given to the tenants as possible.
Cast your mind back to Conservative employment policies before the Labour Government - the desire for a Flexible workforce. In real words, less rights for working people, easier for owners to hire and fire.
In the Conservative lexicon, Flexible = We’ll boot you out when we feel like it. Let us hope for a flexible ConDem government.
Prefect Cleggie was interviewed yesterday on cuts. Sounding more than ever like a Year Seven boy, Prefect Cleggie said: ‘It’s not Fair to expect our children to pick up this debt.’ Gold Star, Cleggie, for getting in the ConDem PR sound byte - now I think a bit overdone. But Clegg looked peevish and pathetic, no wonder the LibDem vote is falling and his personal support is in free fall.
The word ‘flexible’ is coming to the fore in Conservative policies. Today we gather they are going to slash the budget for social housing. I’ve been involved in many policy meetings over the past months and one of the most common calls is for more social housing - decent housing at a price people can afford.
Cameron wants to reduce tenancy rights for social housing tenants - he wants a more Flexible system. Part of his argument is that people shouldn’t be holding on to a tenancy if they can afford to buy. Doesn’t this mansion owner realise that if people in social housing can afford to buy, that’s just what they do. We can see what his policy is aimed at; privately built houses with private landlords . . . free market economy, based on maximum profits for the landlords and as little given to the tenants as possible.
Cast your mind back to Conservative employment policies before the Labour Government - the desire for a Flexible workforce. In real words, less rights for working people, easier for owners to hire and fire.
In the Conservative lexicon, Flexible = We’ll boot you out when we feel like it. Let us hope for a flexible ConDem government.
Prefect Cleggie was interviewed yesterday on cuts. Sounding more than ever like a Year Seven boy, Prefect Cleggie said: ‘It’s not Fair to expect our children to pick up this debt.’ Gold Star, Cleggie, for getting in the ConDem PR sound byte - now I think a bit overdone. But Clegg looked peevish and pathetic, no wonder the LibDem vote is falling and his personal support is in free fall.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Any Chance of Honesty on the Council Tax?
The ConDems have announced that they are not going to carry out the ‘rate review’ planned for this year – and they’re not going to do it before the next General Election.
Now I don’t want to be too fair to the ConDems, but Labour did exactly the same. Labour postponed a rate review until after the last General Election.
Pickles is arguing that a review isn’t particularly necessary because the differentials remain approximately the same – being a plain speaking Yorkshireman he didn’t use a word as complicated as ‘differentials’.
But, come on, let’s have a bit of honesty here (oh yes.) The reason all three parties have gone for postponing the re-evaluation is that many people will end up spending more on council tax. We can all see that – clear as day, so why pretend otherwise? The last review was in 91 – twenty years ago.
Can we draw any conclusion from this? (Other than that no politicians will face facts?) My take on it is that if a tax is so difficult to levy fairly that nobody will address the equity or otherwise of it, then the tax itself is unworkable and should immediately be replaced with one that’s better.
We’ll wait and see – but I’m not holding my breath.
Now I don’t want to be too fair to the ConDems, but Labour did exactly the same. Labour postponed a rate review until after the last General Election.
Pickles is arguing that a review isn’t particularly necessary because the differentials remain approximately the same – being a plain speaking Yorkshireman he didn’t use a word as complicated as ‘differentials’.
But, come on, let’s have a bit of honesty here (oh yes.) The reason all three parties have gone for postponing the re-evaluation is that many people will end up spending more on council tax. We can all see that – clear as day, so why pretend otherwise? The last review was in 91 – twenty years ago.
Can we draw any conclusion from this? (Other than that no politicians will face facts?) My take on it is that if a tax is so difficult to levy fairly that nobody will address the equity or otherwise of it, then the tax itself is unworkable and should immediately be replaced with one that’s better.
We’ll wait and see – but I’m not holding my breath.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
What's Clegg communicating?
There’s much talk about Nicko and his confidence. He appears confident, but I’ve been listening carefully to him.
I’m reminded of a theory Lewis Carroll puts in The Hunting of the Snark; the Bellman (who is hunting the snark) works on the principle that whatever you say three times must be true. Today Nicko was constantly talking of the complex tax system ‘left by Gordon Brown.’ Our tax system has always been complicated, but ‘what the hell’, Nicko must be thinking ‘we’ll just blame Gordon and if I repeat it often enough the public will believe me.’
‘Learned lines’ are always so obvious when politicians put them in; it’s disturbing they think we’re so daft.
It’s also informative to listen to Nicko’s voice. Far from giving us great confidence he speaks incredibly quickly sometimes . . . possibly worried that we’ll stop listening? And he gulps for air, a sign of his discomfort. And listen to him move into a high whining tone when answering tough questions.
He knows he’s made several U turns on election promises, and he senses many can see it. He’s not as confident as he seems.
On the Bellman principle (see above) I keep hearing the word ‘broken’. Again, if it’s repeated often enough we believe it. Cameron first introduced the term ‘broken’ to speak of society; it’s an incredibly insulting way to speak of whole groups of UK citizens. But no doubt it looks OK from where Cameron and his living-in-the-1950s colleagues reside. But now I hear from the LibDems ‘broken politics’ (referring to the old way, not the coalition I hasten to add.)
What next? Broken finances, broken taxes, broken NHS - I hear them coming. Hopefully, broken ConDem - we wait and see.
I’m reminded of a theory Lewis Carroll puts in The Hunting of the Snark; the Bellman (who is hunting the snark) works on the principle that whatever you say three times must be true. Today Nicko was constantly talking of the complex tax system ‘left by Gordon Brown.’ Our tax system has always been complicated, but ‘what the hell’, Nicko must be thinking ‘we’ll just blame Gordon and if I repeat it often enough the public will believe me.’
‘Learned lines’ are always so obvious when politicians put them in; it’s disturbing they think we’re so daft.
It’s also informative to listen to Nicko’s voice. Far from giving us great confidence he speaks incredibly quickly sometimes . . . possibly worried that we’ll stop listening? And he gulps for air, a sign of his discomfort. And listen to him move into a high whining tone when answering tough questions.
He knows he’s made several U turns on election promises, and he senses many can see it. He’s not as confident as he seems.
On the Bellman principle (see above) I keep hearing the word ‘broken’. Again, if it’s repeated often enough we believe it. Cameron first introduced the term ‘broken’ to speak of society; it’s an incredibly insulting way to speak of whole groups of UK citizens. But no doubt it looks OK from where Cameron and his living-in-the-1950s colleagues reside. But now I hear from the LibDems ‘broken politics’ (referring to the old way, not the coalition I hasten to add.)
What next? Broken finances, broken taxes, broken NHS - I hear them coming. Hopefully, broken ConDem - we wait and see.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Nicko's too cocky for his own good
Nick Clegg speaks with great confidence - today explaining that we’ve all got ourselves in a state about cuts because we think they’re all going to happen the moment the financial review is announced. He goes on to explain that they’re going to be spread over two years, implying that that’s not so bad then.
So he’s doing what he’s always done; speaking with great confidence about not very much of real substance. He fails to understand, too, the atmosphere of fear that’s being created; an atmosphere that will seriously damage the UK’s wellbeing. There used to be an expression ‘motor mouth’ - does that still exist I wonder?
He took Prime Minister’s Questions this week. And he’s gaining a reputation for the vitriol he throws at the Labour benches. This tactic may gain him some friends in the media and the Conservatives (and of course, his own parliamentary party). But he’s already put many Lib Dem members and voters under pressure with his coalition; he may find his vitriol increasing this pressure beyond breaking point. (Lib Dem support is seriously down at the moment.)
Nick Clegg’s attitude is that of a cocky senior boy at school, newly made a prefect. Watch out Nicko, you know what pride always comes before . . .
So he’s doing what he’s always done; speaking with great confidence about not very much of real substance. He fails to understand, too, the atmosphere of fear that’s being created; an atmosphere that will seriously damage the UK’s wellbeing. There used to be an expression ‘motor mouth’ - does that still exist I wonder?
He took Prime Minister’s Questions this week. And he’s gaining a reputation for the vitriol he throws at the Labour benches. This tactic may gain him some friends in the media and the Conservatives (and of course, his own parliamentary party). But he’s already put many Lib Dem members and voters under pressure with his coalition; he may find his vitriol increasing this pressure beyond breaking point. (Lib Dem support is seriously down at the moment.)
Nick Clegg’s attitude is that of a cocky senior boy at school, newly made a prefect. Watch out Nicko, you know what pride always comes before . . .
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Ed Balls' Interesting Spanner
Make You Mind Up Time is moving ever closer . . . for Labour Party members, that is. And Ed Balls has now put an interesting spanner into the works; he’s voiced something many of us instinctively feel is right but nobody has yet really voiced till now. He has spoken against the current, almost universal, thinking that the budget deficit must be cleared quickly. He voices the view that we must continue to support the economy until growth is more established. Rather than saying the deficit must be cleared as quickly as possible, he’s saying it must be cleared as quickly as is appropriate.
There is nobody I’ve met recently who believes that the savage ConDem cuts will lead to growth. In fact the evidence is in front of us; I’ve never known so many people taking voluntary redundancies or early retirements - some even involuntary redundancies. Many of these people may not register as unemployed or jobless, although some will. But, nevertheless, there is a serious danger of unemployment going up, the number of people not working going even more up, and tax revenues falling. In addition the amount of money spent of welfare will not fall - unless the ConDems put through draconian cuts.
Drastic cuts, cuts at a level never attempted before, are a grave danger, and Ed Balls‘ warning is right.
Will Ed Balls win this leadership contest? It seems unlikely. Will he be part of a shadow front bench team? That seems very likely. Will his arguments be heard and taken on board? The country may be ready to give him a proper hearing.
Casting our vote is a serious matter; and it’s just become even more complicated.
There is nobody I’ve met recently who believes that the savage ConDem cuts will lead to growth. In fact the evidence is in front of us; I’ve never known so many people taking voluntary redundancies or early retirements - some even involuntary redundancies. Many of these people may not register as unemployed or jobless, although some will. But, nevertheless, there is a serious danger of unemployment going up, the number of people not working going even more up, and tax revenues falling. In addition the amount of money spent of welfare will not fall - unless the ConDems put through draconian cuts.
Drastic cuts, cuts at a level never attempted before, are a grave danger, and Ed Balls‘ warning is right.
Will Ed Balls win this leadership contest? It seems unlikely. Will he be part of a shadow front bench team? That seems very likely. Will his arguments be heard and taken on board? The country may be ready to give him a proper hearing.
Casting our vote is a serious matter; and it’s just become even more complicated.
Monday, 23 August 2010
More Post-It Note ConDem government
Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Local Government has big feet - at least we can assume he has the way he goes around trampling all over people. We can also assume he has an equally large mouth - since his feet frequently fit into it.
He’s done it again; this time accusing the Audit Commission of wasting thousands of pounds at Newmarket Racecourse. It turns out that they had a conference there, and Newmarket was the most cost effective choice of venue (no races running, but the way). Pickles isn’t around to apologise for his wrongful accusation; instead they put up minister Bob Neill to take the flack . . . this frequently being the job of ministers.
This is the first time I’ve come across Neill; my impression was that either he was appallingly under-prepared or that he’s defending an unthought-through position. Full of loud bluster, he sounded mighty uncomfortable.
He had no defence of Pickles’s statement . . . there may well be none. He focused only on the proposed abolition of the Audit Commission. One of the things that’s marked out this ConDem administration is their lack of thinking beyond the ‘scrapping’ policy. Neill had no facts nor figures to support this AC abolition other than being certain it would save money. Nobody mentioned the free-market word; but his entire policy is based on this. That is, that we put the audit commission roles into the private sector and competition will drive down prices.
That Neill was speaking under-prepared or unthought-through was further substantiated when, towards the end of his interview, he put forward the idea, out of the blue, that Audit Commission staff might want to try a staff buy-out.
More post-it note government.
He’s done it again; this time accusing the Audit Commission of wasting thousands of pounds at Newmarket Racecourse. It turns out that they had a conference there, and Newmarket was the most cost effective choice of venue (no races running, but the way). Pickles isn’t around to apologise for his wrongful accusation; instead they put up minister Bob Neill to take the flack . . . this frequently being the job of ministers.
This is the first time I’ve come across Neill; my impression was that either he was appallingly under-prepared or that he’s defending an unthought-through position. Full of loud bluster, he sounded mighty uncomfortable.
He had no defence of Pickles’s statement . . . there may well be none. He focused only on the proposed abolition of the Audit Commission. One of the things that’s marked out this ConDem administration is their lack of thinking beyond the ‘scrapping’ policy. Neill had no facts nor figures to support this AC abolition other than being certain it would save money. Nobody mentioned the free-market word; but his entire policy is based on this. That is, that we put the audit commission roles into the private sector and competition will drive down prices.
That Neill was speaking under-prepared or unthought-through was further substantiated when, towards the end of his interview, he put forward the idea, out of the blue, that Audit Commission staff might want to try a staff buy-out.
More post-it note government.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
When are we going to see an honest debate about drug use and abuse?
Drugs are in the news again; always a good topic for a few headlines - and that’s really the problem.
The ConDems make it into the news because they want to consider the possibility of removing welfare benefits from people who refuse treatment. Excuse me, but my understanding is that there aren’t enough places on treatment programmes for those wanting them. But we should live safe in the knowledge that the ConDems are going to ask people their views. Once again, we see the ConDem PR machine in action. More talk and (not yet) any action. Hypocrisy.
At the other end of the spectrum, Sir Ian Gilmore, retiring President of the College of Physicians, has suggested that drugs should be legalised. The problem for Sir IG is that he knows what he’s talking about; and the one thing politicians don’t want on drugs is informed debate . . . though they like to say they want it.
Labour is no better; one of the most stupid decisions the Labour Government made was to reclassify cannabis - C to B. Other than a couple of days’ good headlines what use did this do? A rhetorical questions . . . but I’ll answer it. None.
I wonder, sometimes, what land politicians live in. How many of us can honestly say we don’t know anybody who uses them? Like most of us, I have many friends who smoke cannabis; other classified drugs, I don’t know. I’d like to say I’m fiercely opposed to drug use and that I never take them. In terms of classified drugs I can say I don’t take them - but I drink alcohol and coffee. I gave up cigarettes years ago for health reasons.
The UK has an ambivalent attitude to drug use . . . look at the dope-smoking, pill popping lead character in SHAMELESS, a popular anti-hero. And comedy (however broad) reflects society - see the name of this blog.
Drug use is common at all levels of society - even at political levels. Drug use is complex - in judicial, medical, financial and social terms. The sooner politicians realise this and enter into an informed, serious and above all honest debate the better. Politicians can lead . . . are there any brave enough to lead on this?
The ConDems make it into the news because they want to consider the possibility of removing welfare benefits from people who refuse treatment. Excuse me, but my understanding is that there aren’t enough places on treatment programmes for those wanting them. But we should live safe in the knowledge that the ConDems are going to ask people their views. Once again, we see the ConDem PR machine in action. More talk and (not yet) any action. Hypocrisy.
At the other end of the spectrum, Sir Ian Gilmore, retiring President of the College of Physicians, has suggested that drugs should be legalised. The problem for Sir IG is that he knows what he’s talking about; and the one thing politicians don’t want on drugs is informed debate . . . though they like to say they want it.
Labour is no better; one of the most stupid decisions the Labour Government made was to reclassify cannabis - C to B. Other than a couple of days’ good headlines what use did this do? A rhetorical questions . . . but I’ll answer it. None.
I wonder, sometimes, what land politicians live in. How many of us can honestly say we don’t know anybody who uses them? Like most of us, I have many friends who smoke cannabis; other classified drugs, I don’t know. I’d like to say I’m fiercely opposed to drug use and that I never take them. In terms of classified drugs I can say I don’t take them - but I drink alcohol and coffee. I gave up cigarettes years ago for health reasons.
The UK has an ambivalent attitude to drug use . . . look at the dope-smoking, pill popping lead character in SHAMELESS, a popular anti-hero. And comedy (however broad) reflects society - see the name of this blog.
Drug use is common at all levels of society - even at political levels. Drug use is complex - in judicial, medical, financial and social terms. The sooner politicians realise this and enter into an informed, serious and above all honest debate the better. Politicians can lead . . . are there any brave enough to lead on this?
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
The ConDem Hollow Men
While Slasher Cameron is on holiday George Osborne and Nick Clegg are on the charm offensive.
The cartoonists are having a field day with Clegg - a short-trousered school-boy sitting at his Daddie’s big desk, a budgie in a cage . . . Aren’t you reminded of the Spitting Image puppets of David Steele and David Owen . . . (If you haven’t seen them - look them up, it’ll be time well spent.) Self-serving Clegg deserves all the vitriolic ridicule that comes his way.
The joint ConDem messages from Clegg and Osborne are interesting in as much as they have so little substance.
Clegg is desperate to convince us that Society will be so much better after the ConDem financial butchery. He offers us the comfort that the cuts in the economic review aren’t just for this year but for five years . . . The fear that I find around me in many different sectors is not just short term then? To shift the metaphor - the sword of Damocles will be there, but swinging for at least five years. Some comfort!
Osborne’s arguments are just as hollow. He is following Cameron’s lead and still uttering promises with no back up, and policies which face both ways. He says that a fairer society will come from their health and education reforms; but omits to say how this will come about. He wants all young people to be given equal access to education - but seems unaware that the number of young people with good grades unable to get into university is rising.
He states that their welfare reforms with get people out of the trap of poverty and into work; but he declines to explain how the changes are to be afforded or how these people will get into work when employment starts to rise. Osborne hopes that the private sector will pick up many of the public sector jobs being lost; they’ll do this by reducing wages and increasing profits. Does Mr We’re-All-In-This-Together Osborne realise who’ll suffer in this one?
But then, I suppose, the ConDems can change the meanings of Equal and Fair; to change the language to fit the policies may be a cost effective way of being radical.
The cartoonists are having a field day with Clegg - a short-trousered school-boy sitting at his Daddie’s big desk, a budgie in a cage . . . Aren’t you reminded of the Spitting Image puppets of David Steele and David Owen . . . (If you haven’t seen them - look them up, it’ll be time well spent.) Self-serving Clegg deserves all the vitriolic ridicule that comes his way.
The joint ConDem messages from Clegg and Osborne are interesting in as much as they have so little substance.
Clegg is desperate to convince us that Society will be so much better after the ConDem financial butchery. He offers us the comfort that the cuts in the economic review aren’t just for this year but for five years . . . The fear that I find around me in many different sectors is not just short term then? To shift the metaphor - the sword of Damocles will be there, but swinging for at least five years. Some comfort!
Osborne’s arguments are just as hollow. He is following Cameron’s lead and still uttering promises with no back up, and policies which face both ways. He says that a fairer society will come from their health and education reforms; but omits to say how this will come about. He wants all young people to be given equal access to education - but seems unaware that the number of young people with good grades unable to get into university is rising.
He states that their welfare reforms with get people out of the trap of poverty and into work; but he declines to explain how the changes are to be afforded or how these people will get into work when employment starts to rise. Osborne hopes that the private sector will pick up many of the public sector jobs being lost; they’ll do this by reducing wages and increasing profits. Does Mr We’re-All-In-This-Together Osborne realise who’ll suffer in this one?
But then, I suppose, the ConDems can change the meanings of Equal and Fair; to change the language to fit the policies may be a cost effective way of being radical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)