One of the defining stories of the last year of Gordon Brown's Government was the spat between Joanna Lumley and the Government over the way ex-Ghurka soldiers were (or were not) permitted to settle in the UK.
The fragrant Ms Lumley comprehensively out-manouvred various Ministers and Government Departments and the Labour Government came out looking foolish and nasty and the villian of the piece.... David Cameron and other opposition figures made much of their sympathy with the Ghurkas and Joanna and said how thoroughly rotten we were to stop all of them migrating here forthwith.
Well here's a wee surprise: in a not-much-commented-upon article in the Observer at the weekend, Mark Townsend and Toby Helm reveal that "Gurkha regiment faces axe ........" It seems that the ConDems are looking at abolishing the Regiment Of Ghurkas altogether...
It seems that, now that they have permission to settle in the UK, the Tories don't really need them any more...
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Monday, 30 August 2010
Things I wish I'd thought of first....No 1017....
Take a look at this truly disturbing image and try not to laugh and choke at the same time....
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Asil Returns..
Asil Nadir, wanted businessman, fugitive and Tory Party donor has returned from 17 years exile in Cyprus to face the music...three months after a Tory government is re-elected..
Am I cynical to see a possible connection...?
Am I cynical to see a possible connection...?
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
To Lose one Minister...
..is unfortunate. To lose two is careless...
Isn't it slightly weird the way people you've never been aware of before suddenly become Government Ministers and start popping up on telly talking about things they obviously only learned by rote ten minutes before the programme started? But it's even more weird when these people you never heard of who are now Ministers, cock up so blatantly on their first outing that they get the sack and you never see them again...
The coalition has already lost David Laws, the "Orange Book" Lib Dem/Tory cross-breed finance minister. No sooner had he given a beaming first (and sadly for him last) press conference than the hook came out from the flies and off he went to MPs expenses purgatory. Oh well, cheerio then.
Tonight I believe we saw the next candidate for ejection: a certain Finanace Minister Mr Mark Hoban, who looked so flummoxed and out of his depth on Newsnight trying to explain why the budget is progressive to Emily Maitland. "As I sad Emily", he said, and then he said it again and again... he must have said it half a dozen times as he waved and drowned and went down for the third time still bubbling "As I said, glug, Emily, glug.....".
The sight of a once-promising career sinking beneath the waves on its maiden voyage... ghastly and fascinating and a bit sad.
Still. Mustn't grumble. Another one bites the dust....
Isn't it slightly weird the way people you've never been aware of before suddenly become Government Ministers and start popping up on telly talking about things they obviously only learned by rote ten minutes before the programme started? But it's even more weird when these people you never heard of who are now Ministers, cock up so blatantly on their first outing that they get the sack and you never see them again...
The coalition has already lost David Laws, the "Orange Book" Lib Dem/Tory cross-breed finance minister. No sooner had he given a beaming first (and sadly for him last) press conference than the hook came out from the flies and off he went to MPs expenses purgatory. Oh well, cheerio then.
Tonight I believe we saw the next candidate for ejection: a certain Finanace Minister Mr Mark Hoban, who looked so flummoxed and out of his depth on Newsnight trying to explain why the budget is progressive to Emily Maitland. "As I sad Emily", he said, and then he said it again and again... he must have said it half a dozen times as he waved and drowned and went down for the third time still bubbling "As I said, glug, Emily, glug.....".
The sight of a once-promising career sinking beneath the waves on its maiden voyage... ghastly and fascinating and a bit sad.
Still. Mustn't grumble. Another one bites the dust....
Tories in Budget Denial
The Guardian has a nice juxtaposition on its front page today...
And it's not just the Guardian, the Telegraph (Torygraph) has the same stories and photograph with almost the same headlines.... the question is: is it deliberate?
It's great that the PM has a new child, particularly given the family tragedy of the death of his young son, so it might seem churlish to add an "ah-but"....
But (nevertheless) the timing of this happy family event is a reminder that this Tory Government has launched a budget which damages British families, with what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown to be a very regressive attack on the poorest families, who will lose much more in total and in proportion to their already very small incomes.
Now, you and I might say "so far so Tory", and even "so what?". But the fact is that George Osborne stood in Parliament and said "My budget is a progressive budget. It will hit the poorest least". Now it transpires that the Treasury was being economical with the truth...by choosing to end its analysis at 2012 and by excluding some measures from the calculation, it has given the impression that there will be relatively progressive outcomes. But the budget regulates tax and spending until 2015. And after 2012 the effect on the poorest becomes much clearer.
Nick Clegg, in his defence of George Osborne, claimed that the budget had "fairness in its bones". But he was apparentlylying through his teeth mistaken.
We know that Tories "in their bones", care little for the poor, but the Lib Dems have spent decades broadcasting their "caring" credentials. Now that the truth has been revealed, where does that leave the bleeding heart crocodile tears so-called caring Liberal Democrats? In a very uncomfortable place if my judgement is right.
So do they really care? It's my belief that, if this revelation from the IFS does not prompt defections of the Liberal Democrats MPs to Labour, we can consign the "caring Lib Dems" to the dustbin of betrayal and broken promises.
For the last few weeks the Tories have been throwing out the accusation that Labour is in "deficit denial". It looks like they are now in "budget denial"...
And it's not just the Guardian, the Telegraph (Torygraph) has the same stories and photograph with almost the same headlines.... the question is: is it deliberate?
It's great that the PM has a new child, particularly given the family tragedy of the death of his young son, so it might seem churlish to add an "ah-but"....
But (nevertheless) the timing of this happy family event is a reminder that this Tory Government has launched a budget which damages British families, with what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown to be a very regressive attack on the poorest families, who will lose much more in total and in proportion to their already very small incomes.
"The IFS said it had always been sceptical about Osborne's claim that the budget was "progressive" but added that this instant judgment had been reinforced by a study of proposed changes to housing benefit, disability allowances and tax credits due to come in between now and 2015".and...
"Passing judgment that is likely to make uncomfortable reading for the Liberal Democrats, the IFS concluded: "Once all of the benefit cuts are considered, the tax and benefit changes announced in the emergency budget are clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms".In other words the poorest lose most in cash terms and in percentage terms. The richest lose a lot less.
Now, you and I might say "so far so Tory", and even "so what?". But the fact is that George Osborne stood in Parliament and said "My budget is a progressive budget. It will hit the poorest least". Now it transpires that the Treasury was being economical with the truth...by choosing to end its analysis at 2012 and by excluding some measures from the calculation, it has given the impression that there will be relatively progressive outcomes. But the budget regulates tax and spending until 2015. And after 2012 the effect on the poorest becomes much clearer.
Nick Clegg, in his defence of George Osborne, claimed that the budget had "fairness in its bones". But he was apparently
We know that Tories "in their bones", care little for the poor, but the Lib Dems have spent decades broadcasting their "caring" credentials. Now that the truth has been revealed, where does that leave the bleeding heart crocodile tears so-called caring Liberal Democrats? In a very uncomfortable place if my judgement is right.
So do they really care? It's my belief that, if this revelation from the IFS does not prompt defections of the Liberal Democrats MPs to Labour, we can consign the "caring Lib Dems" to the dustbin of betrayal and broken promises.
For the last few weeks the Tories have been throwing out the accusation that Labour is in "deficit denial". It looks like they are now in "budget denial"...
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Same old Same old...
On the Spectator blog, Peter Hoskins has a short piece on what he sees as the key dividing line in this Parliament.
Put briefly, he sees the attack on universal benefits by the coalition as a defining issue betwen the ConDems and Labour. The difference is in how the parties see a....
Hoskins seems to think that this is something new and distinct, and that the battle over these benefits is a 21st century ideological divide. But we have been here before. In a sense the political war over state benefits which raged throughout the 20th century, culminating in the battle of Thatcherism and the desired "size of the state" was fought on this very ground. The idea that public services should be privatised and that the rich could pay for better services than the rest of us is an extension of the argument over whether benefits are paid universally by the state, or indeed paid at all.
The Tories have always been emotionally attached to the workshop: it's cheap, it keeps the poor out of sight so that "decent" middle class folk aren't troubled by their presence, while preventing actual starvation (which might cause a conscience twinge or two). Out of sight out of mind and not too costly, ta very much is the policy. "Undeserving poor" is the sentiment.
Labour prefers a measure of universality because that's what brings us all together. If all benefits are paid to a smaller and smaller section of society which is defined as "the poor", then some of the glue that holds us together is lost. We become even more fragmented and differentiated between "them", the undeserving poor, and "us", who pay for their undeserving lives. Charles Dickens would recognise the landscape.
So Hoskins is wrong. It's not a new dividing line, it's the same old dividing line between those who think that social cohesion is something that governments should pursue and encourage and those who think, in the words of Thatcher herself that " ...there is no such thing as society...".
Put briefly, he sees the attack on universal benefits by the coalition as a defining issue betwen the ConDems and Labour. The difference is in how the parties see a....
"....distinction between a "residual welfare state that is just for the poor, which is the Tory position," and a "more inclusive welfare state" that encompasses the middle classes. ..... the former goes against "all the evidence of maintaining public support [for the welfare state]"The benefits in question are Child Benefit, State Pensions, the Winter Fuel Allowance and other benefits which are paid to everyone without any means testing.
Hoskins seems to think that this is something new and distinct, and that the battle over these benefits is a 21st century ideological divide. But we have been here before. In a sense the political war over state benefits which raged throughout the 20th century, culminating in the battle of Thatcherism and the desired "size of the state" was fought on this very ground. The idea that public services should be privatised and that the rich could pay for better services than the rest of us is an extension of the argument over whether benefits are paid universally by the state, or indeed paid at all.
The Tories have always been emotionally attached to the workshop: it's cheap, it keeps the poor out of sight so that "decent" middle class folk aren't troubled by their presence, while preventing actual starvation (which might cause a conscience twinge or two). Out of sight out of mind and not too costly, ta very much is the policy. "Undeserving poor" is the sentiment.
Labour prefers a measure of universality because that's what brings us all together. If all benefits are paid to a smaller and smaller section of society which is defined as "the poor", then some of the glue that holds us together is lost. We become even more fragmented and differentiated between "them", the undeserving poor, and "us", who pay for their undeserving lives. Charles Dickens would recognise the landscape.
So Hoskins is wrong. It's not a new dividing line, it's the same old dividing line between those who think that social cohesion is something that governments should pursue and encourage and those who think, in the words of Thatcher herself that " ...there is no such thing as society...".
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Duff Degrees and Social Mobility
Nick Clegg made a speech today in which he identifies "social mobility" as a problem that he and his new Tory friends want to address.
Speaking as someone from a large working class family (father a labourer) and who earned good money for a few years, was self employed, owns his own house and has kids who went to university and are now "professionals", I do not disparage anyone's ambition to better themselves.
But I just cannot believe that the Conservatives are serious in their strictures about "social mobility", given that, if "social mobility" is to mean anything then, when poor people go "up the ladder", someone from the middle classes has to "go down the ladder". Any policy which leads to the deliberate impoverishment of the "hard working middle class", will not be popular with that particular class. And they are, after all, the Tories natural constituency. "Vote for us and we'll make you poorer" isn't a credible election slogan.
It strikes me that many Tories are also fond of saying that too many people go to university nowadays….it’s too easy, it devalues the worth of a degree, where are all the plumbers and mechanics to come from, eh, can’t get the help nowadays…..
....You have to sympathise.
Well, I’ve got a proposal to address both problems: it goes like this....
First we reduce the number of university places, thus automatically improving the quality of university education (won’t it?).
Then the clever bit…..we make it a rule that if the parents earn in the bottom 30% in terms of wealth and/or income, their children get first dibs at the top universities (assuming they have the intelligence), and then all the other university places until the universities are all full of the children of the lower orders. In this way highly paid professions such as the law, journalism, the media, consultancy, politics, advertising, top civil service jobs and so on, would much more open to young adults from lower earning families
Conversely, if the parents earn in the top 70% or are in the top 70% of wealth holders, then the children get redirected (we can call it “advised" to soften the blow) into apprenticeships or shop-work or bus driving. Tories rejoice, the shortage of plumbers and joiners is solved in a few years.... now we can get the help!
Voila! Two birds with one stone! No more duff university degrees with too many no-hopers clogging up the system, and real social mobility in half a generation!
Genius.
Speaking as someone from a large working class family (father a labourer) and who earned good money for a few years, was self employed, owns his own house and has kids who went to university and are now "professionals", I do not disparage anyone's ambition to better themselves.
But I just cannot believe that the Conservatives are serious in their strictures about "social mobility", given that, if "social mobility" is to mean anything then, when poor people go "up the ladder", someone from the middle classes has to "go down the ladder". Any policy which leads to the deliberate impoverishment of the "hard working middle class", will not be popular with that particular class. And they are, after all, the Tories natural constituency. "Vote for us and we'll make you poorer" isn't a credible election slogan.
It strikes me that many Tories are also fond of saying that too many people go to university nowadays….it’s too easy, it devalues the worth of a degree, where are all the plumbers and mechanics to come from, eh, can’t get the help nowadays…..
....You have to sympathise.
Well, I’ve got a proposal to address both problems: it goes like this....
First we reduce the number of university places, thus automatically improving the quality of university education (won’t it?).
Then the clever bit…..we make it a rule that if the parents earn in the bottom 30% in terms of wealth and/or income, their children get first dibs at the top universities (assuming they have the intelligence), and then all the other university places until the universities are all full of the children of the lower orders. In this way highly paid professions such as the law, journalism, the media, consultancy, politics, advertising, top civil service jobs and so on, would much more open to young adults from lower earning families
Conversely, if the parents earn in the top 70% or are in the top 70% of wealth holders, then the children get redirected (we can call it “advised" to soften the blow) into apprenticeships or shop-work or bus driving. Tories rejoice, the shortage of plumbers and joiners is solved in a few years.... now we can get the help!
Voila! Two birds with one stone! No more duff university degrees with too many no-hopers clogging up the system, and real social mobility in half a generation!
Genius.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
