Friday 6th.November 2015

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 6:48 pm

Labour has suspended Jeremy Corbyn’s head of policy, Andrew Fisher, after receiving complaints that he campaigned for a rival party at the general election.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... licy-chief

What's this about, please?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 6:50 pm

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1h1 hour ago
Update: Ken Livingstone calls for action to be taken against Danczuk and Field following Fisher suspension http://bit.ly/1RBUoVT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally cracked. Off to get a tot of Aldi's finest brandy.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 6:55 pm

Meanwhile, there's Tories wrecking havoc amongst themselves in government and serving disaster to the nation for five and a half years and counting.

Tao Te Ching (Lao Tzu)
chapter 8

The highest good is like water.
Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.
It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.
In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In business, be competent.
In action, watch the timing.
No fight: No blame.

http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu08.html

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 6:55 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1h1 hour ago
Update: Ken Livingstone calls for action to be taken against Danczuk and Field following Fisher suspension http://bit.ly/1RBUoVT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Finally cracked. Off to get a tot of Aldi's finest brandy.

Don't forget the honey and lemon.
Make a nice toddy.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:11 pm

HindleA wrote:@Ephemerid FYA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/114580.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you - that was in 1998.

This is more recent - http://www.gov.uk/benefit-integrity-centres" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - and was last updated on 18th.September this year.

Four more BICs have been opened since IDS took over - in 2011, the NAO published a document which outlned a programme of claims checking by BICs involving more than a million claimants a year.

I can't find the original document (there's a link to it on rightsnet but it says page not found) but the idea was ostensibly to ensure that "high risk" claimants, ie. those most likely to "make a mistake" were checked to ensure they were getting their full entitlement.

Not many people who have had any contact with BIC staff think this is true......and a quick Google shows that many claimants have had visits or forms throughout the coalition years which have caused them immense distress. I've posted about this before, I think.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:21 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Labour has suspended Jeremy Corbyn’s head of policy, Andrew Fisher, after receiving complaints that he campaigned for a rival party at the general election.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... licy-chief
What's this about, please?

It's about the potential, irrevocable, dissolution of the broad coalition of the left that has hitherto enabled the Labour party to defeat the Tory party despite the FPTP voting system.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:26 pm

Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Labour has suspended Jeremy Corbyn’s head of policy, Andrew Fisher, after receiving complaints that he campaigned for a rival party at the general election.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... licy-chief
What's this about, please?
It's about the potential, irrevocable, dissolution of the broad coalition of the left that has hitherto enabled the Labour party to defeat the Tory party despite the FPTP voting system.

Sincerely hope it's not 'irrevocable'. You've summed it up - and how potentially serious - pretty well though.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:40 pm

Beyond the level of piffle.I apologise to my self.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:44 pm

As I probably can't feel much more jaded and disappointed in our politics - especially of the Labour PLP kind - this evening I may as well post this.

DWP Staff Pocketed Almost Half Of A £90million Bureaucrat 'Bonus Bonanza' Paid Out By The Government Last Year
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:46 pm

I'm a bit upset, I am.

I've just been over to the G to see if anyone had responded to some comments I made earlier - and someone I like a lot (and respected, until just now) has accused me of having repeated digs at pensioners.

I don't think I do that, do I?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:49 pm

HindleA wrote:@Ephemerid

FWIW we were thus"checked" via a 'phone call and request for information which I politely refused to give by that method,the disappointment in their voice on finding out that the reason my better half was out was not because of the reason she thought she had "discovered" was obvious and the tone when outlining the" risk to your benefits" in not returning information via forms which she now had to send out was not indicative of someone wishing to ensure you are getting what you are entitled to.

Exactly. These are not nice people.....

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:51 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:As I probably can't feel much more jaded and disappointed in our politics - especially of the Labour PLP kind - this evening I may as well post this.

DWP Staff Pocketed Almost Half Of A £90million Bureaucrat 'Bonus Bonanza' Paid Out By The Government Last Year
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the fickety fackety feck?

Why are these people getting bonuses at all? It's madness!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:54 pm

ephemerid wrote:I'm a bit upset, I am.

I've just been over to the G to see if anyone had responded to some comments I made earlier - and someone I like a lot (and respected, until just now) has accused me of having repeated digs at pensioners.

I don't think I do that, do I?

I haven't noted you doing that Ephie (unless lampooning of the royals counts as that) ... what was it they took offence at? Maybe you touched a particular nerve.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 7:57 pm

ephemerid wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:As I probably can't feel much more jaded and disappointed in our politics - especially of the Labour PLP kind - this evening I may as well post this.

DWP Staff Pocketed Almost Half Of A £90million Bureaucrat 'Bonus Bonanza' Paid Out By The Government Last Year
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the fickety fackety feck?

Why are these people getting bonuses at all? It's madness!

Fickety fackety feck - I don't know. For so called good 'performance' presumably - or possibly just because it's built in to the system - an entitlement culture which says we get bonuses every year. It stinks.

Think how many services and people in need that amount of money could help.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:12 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:What's this about, please?
It's about the potential, irrevocable, dissolution of the broad coalition of the left that has hitherto enabled the Labour party to defeat the Tory party despite the FPTP voting system.
Sincerely hope it's not 'irrevocable'. You've summed it up - and how potentially serious - pretty well though.

It may be that I am being a tad overly pessimistic. There are plenty of new faces in the PLP who do not fall particularly into either side of this feud. Phoenixes rising from ashes remain a possibility. (I'm not sure Keir Starmer is everyone's cup of tea, for instance, but you would struggle to put a 'Corbynista', 'moderate' or 'Blairite' label on him - he's something else entirely).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:13 pm

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office (NAO), 6 November 2015 - TODAY

The government prepared well for the sale of Eurostar and the sale process was run effectively.
I regard the sale as value for money.
This case illustrates some general lessons for government as it embarks on an unprecedented asset sales programme forecast to exceed £62bn over this Parliament.
These lessons include: the need for detailed business cases in support of the decision to sell; objective and robust valuations to decide if, and when, to sell; and getting good value from advisers.”

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-sale-of-eurostar/

Important to note what's in big print there
'Unprecedented asset sales programme'
Is that legal?

Also, while that sounds pretty, 'I regard the sale as value for money', it's not.
Morse's tight definition of 'value for money' isn't normal.
No, it's not normal because there's more below.

The sale of the UK government’s entire financial interest in Eurostar (40% stake and preference share) generated proceeds of £757.1 million, resulted in the government achieving its objective of maximising proceeds, and represented value for money for the taxpayer, according to a report by the National Audit Office.

However, the total taxpayer investment in Eurostar, prior to its incorporation, is significantly greater than the proceeds generated from this sale. Taxpayer spending on the HS1 project, of which Eurostar cross-channel train service is one part, was over £8 billion. The NAO estimates that UK taxpayers’ financial investment directly related to the Eurostar train service amounts to approximately £3 billion.

Sell off fetched £757.1 million
Taxpayers spent £3 billion making that bit alone

The preference share was due to pay a dividend to the government based on its utilisation of these tax losses – the first dividend was due to be paid in 2015.
Eurostar has been profitable since incorporation and is forecast to continue to be so.

They sold it prior to the GE on purpose resulting in loss.
And taxpayers won't ever see any of that profit because it's gone.
Sold, by Tory Chancellor Jeff.
Please read the summary of the report from the NAO linked above, it won't take too long, it clearly describes greater outrage about why this sale is so messed up.

Eurostar sold off despite ministers believing its value would rise – report
National Audit Office says government wanted to offload 40% share in London-Paris train service before general election
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ice-report

May I please have a hot brandy and honey toddy?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:15 pm

Neutral statement.

Many people get sensitive about the description of the State pension as a benefit.It is categorised as a "replacement income benefit".A fact,indeed in the same category as Carers Allowance,and the reason you cannot get both.They argue that it has been paid for and thus should be removed from such a description.The trouble is,of course is that the word benefit,even ones categorically the same become tainted as do the false division of recipients.Why aid the deserving/undeserving mantra.We all pay tax and all have received are or will receive benefits.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:16 pm

ephemerid wrote:I'm a bit upset, I am.

I've just been over to the G to see if anyone had responded to some comments I made earlier - and someone I like a lot (and respected, until just now) has accused me of having repeated digs at pensioners.

I don't think I do that, do I?

Nope, you don't.
People are frightened, Ephemerid.
When we're scared we don't think with all our best capacities and we lash out at those closest to us.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:17 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
ephemerid wrote:I'm a bit upset, I am.

I've just been over to the G to see if anyone had responded to some comments I made earlier - and someone I like a lot (and respected, until just now) has accused me of having repeated digs at pensioners.

I don't think I do that, do I?
I haven't noted you doing that Ephie (unless lampooning of the royals counts as that) ... what was it they took offence at? Maybe you touched a particular nerve.

Thanks, RR.

I can't think how - she wasn't clear about exactly what I was supposed to have said. Just said I'd been having lots of digs at pensioners to the point she was going to stop counting.

I'm aware she does not approve of Corbyn or those who support him. Maybe that's it. But I was just a bit shaken as it seemed so personal....

Ho hum. It's the internet.

Off to do drugs (sounds good, but it ain't) and go to bed.

Night all.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:22 pm

Waiting for the abolition of Bereavement Allowance,on the basis of a perverse incentive to bump off a spouse.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:27 pm

ephemerid wrote:I'm a bit upset, I am.

I've just been over to the G to see if anyone had responded to some comments I made earlier - and someone I like a lot (and respected, until just now) has accused me of having repeated digs at pensioners.

I don't think I do that, do I?

No. You rarely mention them....

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:27 pm

To be strictly fair,they are changing it,so younger people will get it,but other changes are not so good.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:32 pm

HindleA wrote:Neutral statement.

Many people get sensitive about the description of the State pension as a benefit.It is categorised as a "replacement income benefit".A fact,indeed in the same category as Carers Allowance,and the reason you cannot get both.They argue that it has been paid for and thus should be removed from such a description.The trouble is,of course is that the word benefit,even ones categorically the same become tainted as do the false division of recipients.Why aid the deserving/underserving mantra.We all pay tax and all have are or will receive benefits.

Dividing us and playing us off against each other.
The word 'benefit' has undergone stigma creation and those in receipt of the State Pension may object to it.
Entitlements we all contribute toward and receive are good.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:32 pm

ephemerid wrote:I'm a bit upset, I am.

I've just been over to the G to see if anyone had responded to some comments I made earlier - and someone I like a lot (and respected, until just now) has accused me of having repeated digs at pensioners.

I don't think I do that, do I?

Not as far as I've ever noticed. (BTW: Glad you're less yellow and in less pain than you have been - sincerely hope that you're on the mend, now. x)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:35 pm

HindleA wrote:Waiting for the abolition of Bereavement Allowance,on the basis of a perverse incentive to bump off a spouse.

That is so funny.

Cap. Doffed. Sir.

Then - the abolition of Attendance Allowance, on the basis of a perverse incentive that someone might turn up.

Oy Thang Yew.

(I'm here all week, the prawns are lovely, and I'm really really going to bed now)

Ooh, forgot!

Last thing I promise - for our Welsh contingent - Nigel Owens, Rugby World Cup Final referee, is looking after a local game in Gowerton this week.
He has also been awarded Sports Personality of the Decade by Stonewall. I hope that makes up for some of the vicious homophobic abuse he's endured with such grace.

Now I really really really really AM off to bed.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:36 pm

Just had a peep @ephie, I can't see any in any way shape or form that your posts could be construed as a 'dig' as there is neither a positive or negative assertion in the information. It would be just as improbable for a reader to assume that you are praising the figures. I don't get the harsh comment from the person at all, just providing figures doesn't make for coming down for or against. Weird.

All the more surprising from a once regular here.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:44 pm

Remember when the BBC had a bit of balls

[youtube]wPqG7MjPwic[/youtube]

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:44 pm

Two local council byelections this week:

Torbay - LibDem hold, but that doesn't really tell the full story here as they stormed to victory with nearly 70% of the vote in a ward that has become increasingly marginal for them since it safely returned two councillors for them back in 2003; in May the Tories were less than 50 votes from taking one of the seats here. There was a swing of 24% since then from Tory to LibDem, but the victorious yellows took support from all the other parties - UKIP, who had managed to edge ahead of the second Tory on GE day, saw their share more than halved to 10% whilst Labour declined almost as much to little more than 3%, just ahead of the Greens who were also clearly well down. This result maybe becomes more explicable when the identity of the winning candidate is known; former MP for the area Adrian Sanders, who like many of his colleagues enjoyed a substantial personal vote which was enough to see off all comers before this year's electoral tsunami. Maybe some buyers remorse, as well?

Aberdeenshire - an unusual double vacancy north of the border saw the former coalition parties perform somewhat differently, however, as the Tories took the LibDem seat from the last regular election in 2012 (LibDems had topped the poll in 2007, taking 2 of the 4 seats with the Nats and Tories one each - three years ago an Independent took one of their seats as the Lib share tumbled) whilst the SNP held their place on this division. In actual fact Tories advanced nearly 10% to narrowly top the poll (as in some other recent Scottish byelections, the absence of a previously significant Independent presence has certainly done them no harm) ahead of the Nats whose share barely increased at all (despite their being no candidate from their erstwhile de facto allies the Greens this time) whilst the LibDems regained some ground from three years ago, but not enough (both winners scored over a third of the vote, thus meaning transfers were not neccessary) As for the also rans, Labour scored roughly 5% - slightly down on their previous showing here in 2007 - but that was still ten times as much as fringe vanity outfit the Scottish Libertarian Party, who took their usual derisory share.

Four contests next week.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 8:45 pm

ephemerid wrote:(I'm here all week, the prawns are lovely, and I'm really really going to bed now)

Ooh, forgot!

Last thing I promise - for our Welsh contingent - Nigel Owens, Rugby World Cup Final referee, is looking after a local game in Gowerton this week.
He has also been awarded Sports Personality of the Decade by Stonewall. I hope that makes up for some of the vicious homophobic abuse he's endured with such grace.

Now I really really really really AM off to bed.

Goodnight, Ephemerid.
Sleep well & I'll read you again soon.
love
cJA

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 9:17 pm

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ ... are-button" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 9:20 pm

Sickening.

Mr TB Free ‏@Mr_TBFree 14h14 hours ago
@DefraGovUK's "comprehensive" #btb strategy = culling regardless of evidence & u-turn on cattle controls @domdyer70 http://m.northdevonjournal.co.uk/FARMIN ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

THE most important measure in tackling spread of this disease .... and they are weakening it. At the same time as rolling out a thoroughly discredited and flawed 'policy' re killing badgers.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 9:29 pm

Re the suspension of the policy advisor...

If a Tory or Lib Dem MP crossed the floor, Labour wouldn't turn them down would they?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 9:45 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Re the suspension of the policy advisor...

If a Tory or Lib Dem MP crossed the floor, Labour wouldn't turn them down would they?

No. But I think they might be unhappy if, having joined Labour, they then started to encourage Labour voters to vote Green.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 9:56 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Re the suspension of the policy advisor...

If a Tory or Lib Dem MP crossed the floor, Labour wouldn't turn them down would they?

I hope not.

I've been mulling re this offence of having supported / campaigned for other parties over ... and it's a difficult one because, as you point out, surely we want people to turn their support away from other parties and towards Labour. There are some MPs who have been in several parties - serial swoppers. This case is made more complex and acute by the alleged activity being so recent - the soreness of that May election defeat - and the further soreness of the Corbyn victory. It's a different party from that which went into the election - that can't be denied - and that is going to bring people in, and some to the fore, who were formerly critical and felt unable to fully support it. Such a big change brings uncomfortable adjustments and the need to accommodate and find ways of working with new people and new approaches. We are going to have find our way through this stormin period.
I saw a comment earlier BTL on the G that resonated ... something about all this angst and feuding in the PLP being a million miles away from, and totally unrepresentative of, their experience in their CLP. Same here. We don't all see eye to eye over strategy, policy and who are the best reps etc - but we jog along and find a way through with a lot of give and take and humour - there's a shared loyalty and recognition of commitment and effort put in by others regardless of any difference.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 10:00 pm

Just pickeed up this message from good source. Posting it up as a bit of advance info. will supply source if you PM me.

IAPT/CBT George Osborne £40m project for getting claimants with mental health impairments back to work This project was announced in March 2015 budget before election

Project will start to be implemented in job centres in January 2016. On line IAPT therapy

Ingenus involved in work programme will also be involved in this programme in seven offices in London , will be implementing this in Norwich and scotland this will be rolled out in 350 job centres

Keep an eye out for this. Government are determined to push this through

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 10:21 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Re the suspension of the policy advisor...

If a Tory or Lib Dem MP crossed the floor, Labour wouldn't turn them down would they?
I hope not.

I've been mulling re this offence of having supported / campaigned for other parties over ... and it's a difficult one because, as you point out, surely we want people to turn their support away from other parties and towards Labour. There are some MPs who have been in several parties - serial swoppers. This case is made more complex and acute by the alleged activity being so recent - the soreness of that May election defeat - and the further soreness of the Corbyn victory. It's a different party from that which went into the election - that can't be denied - and that is going to bring people in, and some to the fore, who were formerly critical and felt unable to fully support it. Such a big change brings uncomfortable adjustments and the need to accommodate and find ways of working with new people and new approaches. We are going to have find our way through this stormin period.
I saw a comment earlier BTL on the G that resonated ... something about all this angst and feuding in the PLP being a million miles away from, and totally unrepresentative of, their experience in their CLP. Same here. We don't all see eye to eye over strategy, policy and who are the best reps etc - but we jog along and find a way through with a lot of give and take and humour - there's a shared loyalty and recognition of commitment and effort put in by others regardless of any difference.

(my bold)

Yes, this is essential. It was made clear to me when I joined the Labour party, if I wished to remain a Labour party member, joining the Tory party, for example, wouldn't be okay and I'd have to relinquish my Labour party card and membership. Seems fair to me. In all seriousness, it's about integrity, commitment and dedication to cooperative political action within the Labour party. I've written it once here today already, Corbyn has been a Labour party member for decades and he hasn't betrayed his conscience or the political party he's chosen to remain in.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 11:09 pm

seeingclearly wrote:Just pickeed up this message from good source. Posting it up as a bit of advance info. will supply source if you PM me.

IAPT/CBT George Osborne £40m project for getting claimants with mental health impairments back to work This project was announced in March 2015 budget before election

Project will start to be implemented in job centres in January 2016. On line IAPT therapy

Ingenus involved in work programme will also be involved in this programme in seven offices in London , will be implementing this in Norwich and scotland this will be rolled out in 350 job centres

Keep an eye out for this. Government are determined to push this through

Plundered from the pockets of the sick/disabled,someone had to pay after all.barstewards,but why the need Freud,by the miracle of a thirty percent reduction in income ,stated that staff will suddenly identify those with mental health problems and thus be more proficient than any trained doctor could.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 06 Nov, 2015 11:50 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 21m21 minutes ago
Tim Farron says only LDs can beat LAB in Oldham by-election
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

The old jokes are the best ones.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 1:54 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Ed Balls has a cousin who has written a book on the great Stiff Records scene around 1976-77, and biographies on Ian Dury, Elvis Costello etc. I didn't realize he was Ed's cousin until after I bought one of the books and delved a little deeper. Richard Balls, a fine chap. I have to say that he has replied to me a few times on twitter. https://twitter.com/RichardBalls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brings to mind Wreckless Eric. Those were the days.

http://wrecklesseric.com/?page_id=144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 4:20 am

ephemerid wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:As I probably can't feel much more jaded and disappointed in our politics - especially of the Labour PLP kind - this evening I may as well post this.

DWP Staff Pocketed Almost Half Of A £90million Bureaucrat 'Bonus Bonanza' Paid Out By The Government Last Year
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the fickety fackety feck?

Why are these people getting bonuses at all? It's madness!

Perhaps I could throw a little light on this subject.

First though, a hello. Been lurking for, well ages, but never quite got to the posting stage of things. But that's chronic depression for you I guess, never quite seem to get the energy somehow. It's probably also why I'm typing this after when I am. Over on the website of what used to be a moderately leftish and certainly anti-racist/sexist serious newspaper my current incarnation is TomRainsboro'sGhost. Not my first incarnation there, but my long-standing previous account attracted some unwelcome "libertarian wingnut" stalkers (or maybe stalker and sockpuppets), I got fed up with the abuse so binned that ID and set up a new one. So, hello.

Right, civil servants and "bonuses". Mrs TRG is a civil servant of around 30 years standing, and she can prompt me to fill in the full gory details if necessary when she's awake, but the short version as I understand it goes like this. Sorry it's a bit of an essay.

All civil servants are assessed annually. The scheme's varied a lot over the years, but the relevant thing here civil servants who's report says significantly exceeded the requirements of their post and grade.

Back in the good old days a newly appointed civil servant started on the bottom of a pay scale then, so long as they basically did the job satisfactorily, they would each year slowly climb a pay increment ladder until they reached the grade maximum after quite a lot of years. Same sort of thing existed in health and local government and many private employers did the same. The idea being that experienced staff would, on average, get better at the job and experienced staff are worth encouraging to stay.

John Major's government introduced a very badly thought-out trial bonus scheme in the Inland Revenue which caused all kinds of problems and so was sort of ditched for a big rethink.

What eventually emerged, later tweaked by Blair and Brown, was a system of "merit pay". If a civil servant's annual report indicated they had significantly exceeded the requirements of their post and grade they got a one-off sum of "merit pay", mostly a few hundred (taxable) quid. This was billed as bringing the best private sector management incentive methods into the civil service.

Then along come Cameron, Clegg & Co who reopened the whole can of worms again.

To cut a very long story short, the current situation is the annual increments system went some years ago.

Now, if a civil servant significantly exceeds the requirements of their grade and post, that gets them a "bonus". That one-off bonus, after tax, is under a £1,000 for a Grade 7 equivalent paid around £43K gross.

Managerial Grade 7s might manage a couple of hundred staff or a whole BA district. Other Grade 7 equivalents in the DWP might be something like an HSE Principal Inspector or a senior Inspector with years of experience and post-graduate professionally qualified, or they might be a solicitor in the legal service. The vast majority of DWP civil servants are clerical grades who get paid quite a lot less than that - many claim tax credits. So we're not talking of vast salaries and rarified Whitehall mandarins here.

So, lots of bonus money paid out mostly means lots of not brilliantly paid civil servants, many under constant threat of redundancy, getting a few hundred quid in exchange for significantly exceeding the requirements of their post. A bonus which was "offered" (in a way you can't refuse) by government in the first place as "compensation" for no more pay increments and the years-long pay freeze with no end in sight (after earlier freezes in the 1990s). It's also the end of the time-honoured idea that you start on a lower salary and as you gain experience and knowledge work your way up over several years to what is the actual pay for the job and the pay that's budgeted for.

And now the same media that hardly raises a peep about million+ bonuses in the city demands "something must be done about this outrage" without giving any of the background to put it in context at all. Coincidence? I think not. It's divide and rule, giving us someone new to hate over breakfast every day and the propaganda ready for a further assault on wages and conditions.

Still, not to worry, it looks like the bonus budget is going to be cut back and cash-limited. Which in turn means many civil servants who are very good at what they do can't be allowed to qualify for a bonus because there's not enough bonus budget for them. So they will get a lower report grade than they deserve which in turn will scupper their promotion chances along with their morale. Which was exactly what sunk Major's disastrous trial scheme in the first place. It's 1994 all over again, and the opposite of a strategy likely to retain and encourage the best of the best.

Benefits Agency civil servants might well not be the flavour of the month, but believe me, job centres (short) staffed by demoralised stressed-out civil servants who are mostly there because they've nowhere else to go after their more able colleagues have given up and left would be worse than things are now. When over-worked and faced with a tricky legal decision or a difficult person to deal with, the easy way to make it just go away is to apply the sanction or say "no" and let the appeals system pick up the pieces. Which is very bad news for the poor sod on the receiving end.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 5:00 am

sputnikkers wrote:Everybody 'knows' that Thatcher hid large amounts of unemployment by vastly increasing case loads of the various forms of disability and invalidity benefit ?

I would love to be able to go back in time, find whichever misguided so-and-so started that rumour and throttle them before they could get the words out.

I worked for the BA 1987-90 then did a decade of welfare-rights and anti-poverty work until my health sneaked up and coshed me. The myth of loads of people being "put on IVB" to get the unemployment figures down is exactly that, a myth. For a start, the local BA office claimant counts didn't support it at the time.

In any case, you wouldn't have received IVB if you weren't entitled to IVB, or Income Support in lieu of it. The claimant had to have an illness or disability, diagnosed by doctors, that meant there was "no work they could reasonably be expected to do". No way round that.

What I think happened is this. Thatcher's unemployment figures started slowly going down 1985ish but it was clear that the jobs simply weren't there and employers kept making people redundant. Now, the figures were dropping, largely I think because of the frequent changes to what actually qualified as "unemployed". As happened to me several times in the years after graduating, 1983-7, it was quite possible to not have a job, be looking for a job and not officially "unemployed" because, in my case for example, no entitlement to unemployment benefit (inadequate contributions) or supplementary benefit (spouse working 24+ hours a week). No income (besides busking and a gig once in a while), no job, but not "unemployed" or eligible for any government job creation scheme either.

Social security law and policy is boring, complicated and as dry as dust. Most people (including the MPs who pass the law) don't really know much about it, but many people think they do. So someone came up with the idea that because the IVB count was creeping up, that's where all the unemployed had gone. That if people weren't entitled to it they couldn't get IVB or claim as sick because no-one in the BA offices was bending the law in their favour was just ignored.

Yes, unemployment benefit offices would point an obviously ill or disabled person at their GP because if someone isn't for for work they are not allowed to claim as unemployed - it's fraud. That's what the UBO should have done, and what would best serve the well-being of the claimant.

But somebody influential, or some influential organisations (including a "paper" with strong links to certain leading Merseyside characters of the time) started to push this "simple explanation" instead of attacking what was actually a more complicated book-cooking scandal to remove the "economically inactive" from the unemployment figures.

Maybe the myth gained legs because people simply couldn't or wouldn't believe that people could be left with no income in Great Britain in the 1980s. I and quite a few others working in the same field tried hard to squash it but talking to the politicians and trades unionists just made their eyes glaze over - too much detail, too complicated, so stick with the simple myth.

It was obviously back then that the myth was a trap. Once "the left" insisted that lots of unemployed (i.e. fit and healthy) people had been "put on the sick to get the figures down" then one day the right would use that against us, claim that something had to be done to get all these "fit and healthy" people "off the sick" and point out that they were only agreeing with the "left" that lots and lots of IVB/IB claimants weren't really ill at all and unlike "the left" they would do something about it.

And, bang on cue, along came 2nd Lieutenant George I D Smith B.A Nothing (Perugia University).