Saturday 7th and Sunday 8th February 2015

[rebeccariots2]

If Ed Balls needs a businessman’s support, I’m in
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... band-balls

It seems businessmen like me are something of a rare breed. For days now, we have read the words of many a company boss wheeled out to attack Labour business policy, while of course backing the Tory strategy.

As a successful City-based entrepreneur with an interest in politics, I have found the recent attacks on Labour increasingly extraordinary. Business is of course vital to Britain’s economic recovery, and supporting business to create jobs and growth must be a priority for any new government. But the idea that to be “supportive of business” the Labour party can’t challenge the status quo where the market is failing or distorted is wrongheaded – and politically and economically puerile.

Yes, it’s important that the government support wealth creators, but it is not “anti-business” to expect businesses do their bit for the country in return. And it is certainly not “anti-business” to envisage a situation where business and government can work together to create a better society. This would surely be in all of our interests.

Labour has therefore been right to challenge companies which choose to use loopholes to avoid paying UK tax on profits made in the UK.

[rebeccariots2]

And this is lovely ..

Top businessman who believes Ed Miliband can take the country forward
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ed-5124743

It’s been quite a surprise to find myself (and even my dogs) all over the news.

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls forgot my surname when he was asked to name Labour’s business backers on Newsnight and I was called “Bill Somebody” by David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Question Time.

But that’s hardly a big deal. To their constant amusement, I get my daughters’ names mixed up all the time.

And, I’m OK with being called a Labour supporting businessman and I see no contradiction in that. I think a Labour government led by Ed Miliband would be good for British business and good for Britain.

We do need to balance the deficit but as well as tight spending control we need a growing economy with high quality jobs rooted in competitive firms.

I happen to personally believe that our best chance of achieving this is inside Europe and it is Labour who are brave enough to say that Britain should stay in the EU.

Every time we threaten exit from the EU it drives investment away from Britain, damaging British business and costing British jobs.

[rearofthestore]

Ed should really go hard on the tax haven stuff. People aren't impressed by billionaire tax dodgers who don't even live here telling us how to vote.

I sometimes don't understand the left; whereas the right finds a populist issue like immigration and exploits it to the full, where Labour's views coincide with popular views....like tax havens, railways etc, they seem reluctant to exploit it.

What people think they know about railways is basically wrong, and people like Caroline Lucas can't be bothered to find out and tell them. The problem is that taxpayers have never wanted to subsidize fares like they have in other countries. So the Treasury looks to maximise revenue from train operators, which doesn't encourage low fares. This is where the reluctance to renationalize comes from- because finance ministers don't fancy raising the sort of tax for fare subsidies, not because they're all neo-liberal thickos. East Coast clearly did very well, but in terms of getting money back to the Treasury, the private bid will almost certainly be better at that.

There are obvious criticisms of the fragmented privatized railway though- duplication, shareholder profits. But it basically works in terms of the sort of public money available.

Morning all...and sorry, Tubby, but I most definitely disagree here - 1) on 'the taxpayer' - other human members of society do exist and should also be counted (it's the division that gets me - if you're not a TAXPAYER you're not contributing to society and are therefore either a shirker or a scrounger - which section of people stand to gain the most from this division?) 2) Every poll that has ever been taken has returned massive support for a publicly funded and run railway system (and utilies/water etc etc) 3) Mass transportation (like health and education) is too important to the fabric of a modern society to be left in the hands of 'business' and 'the market' (and there has never been a logical or coherent argument or any evidence to suggest 'the market' is better other than for the pockets of those on the 'inside') as it should be prioritising the best and most efficient way to move people around....lest we forget, Beeching destroyed the railways (as he was tasked to do) after producing a report from the point of view of the Chairman of ICI....not the point of view of someone thinking about all people and what would work best for all with responsible investment. As to where we go from here, I'd start with a full investigation into the real subsidies (not the ones the politicos bang on about - 'it costs/it'll cost the taxpayer millisquillibillions, I tell you') channeling money from the treasury directly into the pockets of those on the inside (of the 1% and their enablers and lackeys). Ever wondered why the Railways, heavy industry (steel, manufacturing) and the coal industry were so heavily targetted by and since Thatcher? 'Break the unity of the common man and we (the elite) can get all our money back' (and teach the dirty stinking proles a lesson or two about our superiority whilst we're about it)....trouble is, they've always been wrong - it's not 'their' money in the first place and, frankly, they don't really understand the concept of 'money' and certainly not in it's relationship with/to labour (small 'l' labour....sweat of the brow etc).

As usual, I'm not convinced this ramble is in the slightest bit coherent....so if it disappears, I've noticed I'm talking load of old sh1t

Good Morning Folks.
Lone Wolfie I tend to agree with most of your comment.

Of course there might be no overwhelming desire to subsidise railways to a greater extent, as Tubby suggests, but that is what Major's ill judged privatisation has actually achieved. We are now paying more in passenger fares than any other country in Europe and at the same time providing subsidies nearly twice as much (in real terms) than we were prior to 1996. (I direct you to my detailed post 6th Jan at 1042).

I know it is really difficult to compare figures for the railways today to those that apply before privatisation because it would appear the government produces incompatible statistics. I agree there should be a proper independent investigation into this funding and the individual's pockets into which it was funnelled and I could point them towards a few myself!

As for Beeching, he was tasked to produce a report 'The Reshaping of British Railways' published in 1963. Many believe that it was more to do with Ernest Marples business interests than making the railways 'better'. By the way lots of lines proposed for closure in that report had already closed before it was published. Many were saved by the incoming Wilson Labour government in 1964 (including, for example, all lines north of Inverness) and since then others not recommended for closure by him have been closed stupidly in my opinion (such as Manchester to Sheffield via Woodhead). Also in his defence Beeching proposed in the report the freightliner network which is a profitable railfreight operation.

[rebeccariots2]

Andrew Woodcock ‏@AndyWoodcock 50s50 seconds ago
.@dannyalexander admits he faces "a real battle" agst SNP in his seat, but tells #murnaghan voters will reward his record in Government

Do they give their guests happy juice even in the morning?

Andrew Woodcock ‏@AndyWoodcock 2m2 minutes ago
As #GE2015 gets nearer, voters will recognise Lib Dems are "rock of stability" on which recovery built, @dannyalexander tells #murnaghan

[pk1]

Gleaned from last nights Press Preview & that detestable former Downing Street Communications Director, Jonathan Haslam:

Toby Helm is a brother to Sarah Helm, husband of Jonathan Powell who used to be Chief of Staff to Tony Blair ! Powell is now the official envoy to Libya.

All in it together - ain't they just !

[rebeccariots2]

Minister In 7bn Tax Probe.jpg (71.97 KiB) Viewed 11642 times

Andrew Gwynne MP retweeted
James Mills ‏@JamesMills1984 17m17 minutes ago
Not any #Tory MP, but the solicitor general, involved in a scheme investigated over tax avoidance... resigning issue!

[pk1]

And this is lovely ..

Top businessman who believes Ed Miliband can take the country forward
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ed-5124743

It’s been quite a surprise to find myself (and even my dogs) all over the news.

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls forgot my surname when he was asked to name Labour’s business backers on Newsnight and I was called “Bill Somebody” by David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Question Time.

But that’s hardly a big deal. To their constant amusement, I get my daughters’ names mixed up all the time.

And, I’m OK with being called a Labour supporting businessman and I see no contradiction in that. I think a Labour government led by Ed Miliband would be good for British business and good for Britain.

We do need to balance the deficit but as well as tight spending control we need a growing economy with high quality jobs rooted in competitive firms.

I happen to personally believe that our best chance of achieving this is inside Europe and it is Labour who are brave enough to say that Britain should stay in the EU.

Every time we threaten exit from the EU it drives investment away from Britain, damaging British business and costing British jobs.

I'm exactly the same with my sons & there are only two of them ! I get in a dreadful muddle with my dogs - the three of them are frequently referred to as each other as well as much missed deceased dogs sometimes.

[gilsey]

If Ed Balls needs a businessman’s support, I’m in
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... band-balls

Another extract from the same piece

Looking ahead, what business needs most from the next government is the stability to invest and grow. In my view it is Labour that offers the best chance of achieving this. After all, the biggest threat on the horizon to economic stability isn’t a Labour policy, it’s a Conservative one: the politically motivated prospect of a referendum on EU membership in 2017. This sop to the Tory right and desperate attempt to end the haemorrhaging of votes to Ukip represents a clear and present danger to British business interests.

[PorFavor]

Good morning.

Yesterday, pk1 posted this:

Anthony Wells in his round up has today said

Labour came under criticism from various business leaders, primarily Stefano Pessina the boss of Boots. Last year YouGov found 27% of people saw Labour as a pro-business party, 21% as anti-business. In comparison 66% saw the Tories as pro-business, 5% anti-business. Whether people necessarily see being pro-business as a good thing is a different matter entirely… more on this on Sunday.

so I'm guessing they have tested public opinion for Sundays yougov poll & that the numbers favour Labour's stance rather than the Cons about being pro-business

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archi ... 2#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't find anything on this today (which could well be my inefficiency). Does anyone else have anything, please?

[tinyclanger2]

@ tinyclanger2

I don't know what's been going on but I haven't edited anything at all today [/b]

Seems almost portentous - or perhaps the sunny equivalent of that.

[DonutHingeParty]

Morning all.

I was reading an article on the Daily Maul site about how people in 2m houses were worried about the mansion tax when, tucked in at the bottom, as if it was ashamed to be there, was a letter from Thatcher's nursemaid Conor Burns. Oh here we GI, I am thought, another mauling. But reminiscent of the time John McClaine took a woman to task for as hominem attacks on Obama, Burns actually says he admires and Likes Ed, and thinks he's a good politician (whilst being opposed to his policies) It was a surprising read. Can't link from oh he though, so if someone else wants to c&p I to stop the Maul getting too many hits that'd be great.

[frightful_oik]

Andrew Neil allowing Tory to finish sentences but constantly interrupting Labour bloke. Colour me shocked!

[Tubby Isaacs]

Wolfie,

I'm not using "taxpayer" to differentiate from non-taxpayers or "scroungers" or whatever. I'm using it to mean funding provided through general taxation, as opposed to funding provided by people paying fares. I call the same thing "The Treasury" elsewhere.

There is plenty of good stuff going on with rail, and plenty of old-fashioned planning. The infrastructure and rolling stock are under government control, as is the timetable. The "market" elements are relatively small. What they do, fairly well, is bring money into the Treasury. As ROTS says, this is done largely by charging higher fares and sweating the staff.

I think there's definitely a longer term logic to re-unifiying as a new British Rail- to be clear, British Rail was good. But it wouldn't in itself achieve what people think it will. The problem with not enough central taxation funded investment will still be there.

[PorFavor]

Morning all.

I was reading an article on the Daily Maul site about how people in 2m houses were worried about the mansion tax when, tucked in at the bottom, as if it was ashamed to be there, was a letter from Thatcher's nursemaid Conor Burns. Oh here we GI, I am thought, another mauling. But reminiscent of the time John McClaine took a woman to task for as hominem attacks on Obama, Burns actually says he admires and Likes Ed, and thinks he's a good politician (whilst being opposed to his policies) It was a surprising read. Can't link from oh he though, so if someone else wants to c&p I to stop the Maul getting too many hits that'd be great.

I have no pride or self-respect . . . .

Why I, a true Thatcherite, admit I like Ed Miliband, says Conor Burns, Conservative MP for Bournemouth West

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... homes.html

It's towards the end of the article.


Edited to add -

It's a bit lengthy to cut and paste in its entirety. But it's worth a read and may even give Mail readers pause for thought. However, if that spurs the more apathetic among them (all mouth and no trousers) to turn out to vote rather than stay at home that may not necessarily be a good thing.

[HindleA]

That is what I was thinking.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, but it is still heartening. Labour and Miliband won't just lie down and die, however much most of our MSM fervently wishes it

[rebeccariots2]

Am I already dead and festering in some kind of ghastly personalised purgatory ...? In other words - what the hell is this?

Tories Target Ed hating Northern miners.jpg (52.35 KiB) Viewed 11532 times

The Sun Newsdesk ‏@SunNewsdesk 28m28 minutes ago
Exclusive: The Coal-ition — Tories target Ed-hating Northern miners http://sunpl.us/6019LRlT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RogerOThornhill]

Grr...bloody Guardian/Observer have simply repeated that PA report on avoidable deaths with its Mid Staffs lie that was in the Indy earlier.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tal-deaths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've stuck the quote from Keogh in and told them I expect better from the paper. Shoddy.

[rebeccariots2]

... the f***?

Quite.

[PorFavor]

Diction at the BBC is at an all-time low. I keep thinking they're talking about "the militant group Procul Harum".

Edited -
"t" for "T"

[tinyclanger2]

Edited to add -

[PorFavor]

Edited to add -

Ha! Told you things would go back to normal. Never Knowingly Undersold . . . .

[refitman]

As an indication of what the SNP surge might do to the shape of a Westminster government, Anthony Wells on UK Polling Report has changed the way the 'uniform swing' calculator works. Instead of a uniform swing across the whole of the UK, he has split off Scotland and applied the swing there. Last week the average of polls showed Labour 1 point ahead and short by one seat. Today they are ahead by two points but short by 14 seats.

There seems to be considerable uncertainty about whether the polls in Scotland are accurate or representative of what will happen in May, but SNP desires for the balance of power might not be too far wide of the mark.

Talking of Scotland, apparently Murphy has stolen the word 'yes' and no-one else is allowed to use it now:

[tinyclanger2]

Yes, but it is still heartening. Labour and Miliband won't just lie down and die, however much most of our MSM fervently wishes it

I may not like everything Miliband says/does, but boy is he tough under pressure.

[refitman]

Am I already dead and festering in some kind of ghastly personalised purgatory ...? In other words - what the hell is this?

Tories Target Ed hating Northern miners.jpg

The Sun Newsdesk ‏@SunNewsdesk 28m28 minutes ago
Exclusive: The Coal-ition — Tories target Ed-hating Northern miners http://sunpl.us/6019LRlT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now call me sceptical, but I live between Doncaster and Barnsley and the number of people who took time off work, when Thatcher died, was quite large. There were bonfires, fireworks and parties. I can't see a lot of them going Tory.

[Lonewolfie]

Wolfie,

I'm not using "taxpayer" to differentiate from non-taxpayers or "scroungers" or whatever. I'm using it to mean funding provided through general taxation, as opposed to funding provided by people paying fares. I call the same thing "The Treasury" elsewhere.

There is plenty of good stuff going on with rail, and plenty of old-fashioned planning. The infrastructure and rolling stock are under government control, as is the timetable. The "market" elements are relatively small. What they do, fairly well, is bring money into the Treasury. As ROTS says, this is done largely by charging higher fares and sweating the staff.

I think there's definitely a longer term logic to re-unifiying as a new British Rail- to be clear, British Rail was good. But it wouldn't in itself achieve what people think it will. The problem with not enough central taxation funded investment will still be there.

Fair enough, apologies if it seemed a bit 'inyerface' and thanks for the clarification (and interesting extra info ).

[HindleA]

"Crucially",they are not his hands.


Jim Murphy's that is.


Edited to add "Edited to add"

[Lonewolfie]

Am I already dead and festering in some kind of ghastly personalised purgatory ...? In other words - what the hell is this?

Tories Target Ed hating Northern miners.jpg

The Sun Newsdesk ‏@SunNewsdesk 28m28 minutes ago
Exclusive: The Coal-ition — Tories target Ed-hating Northern miners http://sunpl.us/6019LRlT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now call me sceptical, but I live between Doncaster and Barnsley and the number of people who took time off work, when Thatcher died, was quite large. There were bonfires, fireworks and parties. I can't see a lot of them going Tory.

Umm...but doesn't one of the stickers on the helmet adorning the helmet (or OGRFG) say 'Stop Coal Privatisation Now'? Isn't that against the Murkydochian Mantra?

[rebeccariots2]

I don't know how to embed a vimeo here ... but please watch this video (no animal cruelty on show just human on human cruelty). It shows a huntsman seriously injuring a female hunt sab who is peacefully protesting. The CPS have decided not to prosecute. I know there are people who hunt who may not behave like this ... but far too many do and get away with it.

TRACEY ALISON @TRACEYALISON1 · 5h 5 hours ago
PLEASE SHARE Saboteurs release hunt injury video " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #sabthehunt
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 516510.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

[HindleA]

Ad hoc analysis from a pit village,beyond some repitition of "preferred the brother(more because of desire for Labour to win),never met,seen or heard either hatred for Ed nor miniscule hint that for even a fleeting moment they would consider voting Tory.Of course,that may well be the company I keep.

[rebeccariots2]

dominic dyer @domdyer70 · Feb 7
Chris Packham resigns as President Hawk & Owl Trust over their deal with DEFRA on Hen Harrier Management Plan …https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordp ... owl-trust/ …

[AngryAsWell]

The “Talk:CHRC (defunct)” Wikipedia article was just edited anonymously from a UK government computer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?dif ... =553247294" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
This bobs up every now and then and now seem to be on to "C's" - what on earth is going on?
https://twitter.com/WhitehallEdits?lang=en-gb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[pk1]

Good morning.

Yesterday, pk1 posted this:

Anthony Wells in his round up has today said

Labour came under criticism from various business leaders, primarily Stefano Pessina the boss of Boots. Last year YouGov found 27% of people saw Labour as a pro-business party, 21% as anti-business. In comparison 66% saw the Tories as pro-business, 5% anti-business. Whether people necessarily see being pro-business as a good thing is a different matter entirely… more on this on Sunday.

so I'm guessing they have tested public opinion for Sundays yougov poll & that the numbers favour Labour's stance rather than the Cons about being pro-business

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archi ... 2#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't find anything on this today (which could well be my inefficiency). Does anyone else have anything, please?

It's a mixed picture PF.

Todays yougov has the following questions:

**Which party do you think has the best policies towards British business? Cons beat Lab by 33 to 19

**If David Cameron and the Conservatives won the next general election and formed a government, do you think it would be...

Total Good for business 44 over Total Bad 23

**If Ed Miliband and Labour won the next general election and formed a government, do you think it would be...

Total Good for business 19 over Total Bad 43

so a clear Con win right ?

Err, no not quite. When asked:

**Thinking about the approach governments take towards big business, which of the following do you most agree with?

a) Government should generally try to help and support big businesses in Britain, as they create jobs and wealth for the country
b) Government should generally try to stand up to big businesses in Britain, as they too often use their size to take advantage of customers and suppliers

b) beats a) by 49 to 31

**Thinking about the bosses of large British companies, do you think they should or should not comment on political parties' policies?

a)Should - they have every right to support political parties they think would be good for the country and criticise those they think would be bad
b)Should not - the bosses of large companies should stay neutral and not get involved in commenting on political parties and their policies

b) beats a) by 45 to 38

**Stefano Pessina is the CEO of Wallgreen Boots Alliance, the company that owns Boots the Chemists. Stefano Pessina currently lives in Monaco, so does not pay British taxes. Do you think it is or is not acceptable for businessmen who don't live in Britain or pay British taxes to comment on British politics

Is acceptable 19
Is not acceptable 73

**Several other business leaders have also criticised Labour's business policies over the last week, generally speaking, why do you think they have criticised Labour in this way?

a)Business leaders who have criticised Labour are doing so because they genuinely think Labour's policies would be bad for their business
b)Business leaders who have criticised Labour are doing so for political reasons because they are Conservative supporters
c)Both equally

a) 32 b) 26 c) 22

**Do you think being criticised by leaders of big businesses helps or damages the Labour party?

a) helps
b)damages
c)neither

a) 7 b) 52 c) 25

Full details on pages 6 & 7 of the link:

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/d ... 060215.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

@ pk1

Thank you!

Edited to add -

PS I can't get the link to open (I think the problem is at my end, so to speak) but I'm quite content to manage with your easily digested potted version.

Edited (again) to add -

The link is now working for me. Thanks again.

[pk1]

Two articles by Rentoul mention Bill Thomas, the man whose surname Ed Balls forgot.

In this first piece dated 4th Feb, Thomas is semi-retired

http://goo.gl/yNisSC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the subsequent piece today, he is retired !

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/onl ... 31238.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would pull Rentoul on it if I could be arsed but frankly, I think I will just employ this emoticon to display my opinion of him

[PorFavor]

Two articles by Rentoul mention Bill Thomas, the man whose surname Ed Balls forgot.

In this first piece dated 4th Feb, Thomas is semi-retired

http://goo.gl/yNisSC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the subsequent piece today, he is retired !

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/onl ... 31238.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would pull Rentoul on it if I could be arsed but frankly, I think I will just employ this emoticon to display my opinion of him

The two blokes on the newspaper review on BBC News24 this morning (sorry but I honestly can't remember their names although one of them was from "Esquire" magazine) were saying that Ed Balls' memory lapse was a load of fuss about nothing. Someone should tell John Rentoul.

[ErnstRemarx]

You certainly could OhSo.

The wife asked me if we wanted to go to see a film about how much 'stuff' we all had and how we were wrecking the planet by having so much stuff.

This is a woman who converted two stables to have watertight space to store her boxes of stuff, and had loft space created in two rooms in the house to store more...yes you've guessed.... stuff.

My favourite moment was when her husband was playing mine host one Christmas and we said we really liked the champagne...he said he'd got six bottles on a deal from Morrison's. Wife gave him a look that could have killed !

Still none of us are perfect.

But, really, did Blair take all our civil liberties away ?

No - not all of them by a fair stretch. But he had a good try. People got worried and, in the last General Election, voted in such a way as to allow the Conservatives along with their familiars, the LibDems, into government believing that all that sort of thing would stop. I wonder how that's going . . . .

I seem to recall that Henry Porter had many a good outing beating up the last Labour government over civil liberties - very worked up too, he was about it. Apparently the FibDems and the Tories were going to sort it all out, and that our civil liberties were as safe as houses with them, and all the illiberal laws passed by the Stalinists would be repealed, job done.

He and the Graun do seem to have gone very, very quiet about the subject since. One might also consider that if you are starving, sanctioned, homeless and sick, not being wiretapped might come some way further down your list of 'must haves' behind food, a paid job, a secure home and good health.

[ephemerid]

Sanctions.
Again.

There is a splendid little blog called thepoorsideoflife.wordpress.com

The author is a splendid lady called Charlotte who stands outside Ashton-Under-Lyne Jobcentre every Thursday protesting with her friends.
People tell her their stories as they go in and out of the JC, some have been told not to speak to her so they catch up elsewhere.

Charlotte brought to our attention the 23-weeks pregnant lady, sanctioned for 3 months because she told an interviewer that she was expecting.
The interview wasn't for a job, it was for a workfare placement at B&Q.
Charlotte has also noted that Ashton-Under-Lyne Jobcentre not only sanctions at a higher rate than average, it also suffers from a serious case of missing letter syndrome. Letters informing people of things they must do to avoid a sanction mysteriously never arrive at the claimants' homes so they are not aware of the things they're being sanctioned for until they are.
Charlotte has discovered this week that a 13 week sanction can be applied for a spelling mistake on an application form. This, according to one claimant, is an automatic sanctionable offence for failing to apply for a job correctly.

Ashton-Under-Lyne is a very important Jobcentre. It is a flagship Universal Credit Jobcentre. It's the future.

Even though not all its' claimants are on UC yet, all the new claimants of JSA, ESA, and Income Support are.
They are being sanctioned at a higher rate than normal, and for longer than the average, 13 weeks as a first sanction is usual.

If DWP ever publish the sanctions figures in a reasonable format I would be interested to see how the sanctioning rates/levels under UC differ from those in Jobcentres where the old benefits are still in payment.
DWP are not likely to do this - their press releases on this invariably include total figures for the past 10 years in order to obscure the rapid acceleration over the past 3 to 4 - quite deliberately.

I wrote something in our W&B section some time time ago on "Mission Creep". This is the sort of thing I was expecting.
I take no joy out of knowing I was right.
I might write another piece....

[Rednorth]

Feint praise for Ed is looking like Tory policy. It's good for them since it appears to balance Crosby negativity, and it keeps the idea that Ed is somehow an issue himself in the spotlight, when it was the Tories who put it there in the first place. The Tories are fortunate in that they themselves aren't forced to be abusive, they can leave that to their propaganda wing, the Tory media.

We saw an example of this with IDS on Question Time; he was able to sit there straight-faced and claim he'd never called the unemployed 'scroungers'. Well I really don't know whether he has used that description directly or not, but the point is he doesn't have to, he can leave that kind of thing to his trusty tabloid thugs, gradually feeding them tidbits through the DWP.

[ephemerid]

There's another good piece on ekklesia.co.uk with reference to the recent kerfuffle in the House on sanctions.

Some of you may be familiar with the tale - Lisa Nandy, Labour MP for Wigan, told the story of a learning-disabled man in her constituency who, unable to read or tell the time, was sanctioned for failing to attend jobcentre appointments on time. He was sitting in the cold and dark, having had his power cut off, because the sanction had left him with nothing. He hadn't eaten for 5 days.
Mark Spencer, Tory, opined that people who work 50 hours a week for low pay have to turn up on time and he could see no reason why claimants can't do the same; when asked how this individual could be expected to cope if he couldn't tell the time, Spencer said that he thought the education system should be better at preparing the workers of the future amongst other daft remarks.

The article says this - "The idea that inflicting life-threatening punishment on someone for being disabled will suddenly transform them, so that their condition or illness disappears, is not uncommon. It forms the basis for much of today's benefits system".

The article also mentions some research done by the Methodist Church earlier this year, which suggests that mentally ill or learning disabled people are being sanctioned at the rate of 100 a day.
The last set of published figures were released last year and take us no further than that - DWP were due to publish again last autumn but didn't.
So I don't know if the 100/day figure is accurate.

But - even if it's 100 a year, it is morally repugnant to me. No person with a mental illness or learning difficulty should be on JSA unless they specifically ask to be; they should be on ESA (IB would be better) and if they find a job they want to do and are capable of all well and good; but it is wrong on every level to have people who may not understand what their "responsibilities" are, or who are too ill to comply with instructions, being punished for a condition they have no control over and which will not magically improve by the use of threats.

The article goes on to describe IDS's "magical thinking" thus - "In this worldview, regardless of medical science or the reality of peoples' lives, even those with severe brain damage at birth, or a condition such as Parkinson's that gets worse with age, might experience a miracle cure if benefits did not sap their morale. So leaving people with no food or fuel might be doing them a favour".

Looking back at many of the soundbites emanating from IDS and his henchmen, in which sanctions are described as a "deterrent" one minute and as "support" the next, this article nails it. Magical thinking - if they really believe what they say.

And if they don't really believe what they say? Then it's not magical thinking.

It's a cull.

[ephemerid]

More on the odd (and in my view, very dubious) story about the pensioner couple living at Heathrow.

The Mirror has a story on this which starts off with the couple's horror that anyone could think they might not be telling the truth and ends with a reasonable analysis of why they could be.....

Mr.Lane has, apparently, a state pension of £527PCM and an occupational pension of £292PCM and earned £7,000 last year. That's £18K - plus.
It strikes me as odd that he can't afford to rent a flat somewhere on that. Even if the Mail describes this income as "meagre".

According to a Canadian company called Jana Schilder, for whom he works/worked, he moved from London to Canada in January 2013. The Mail had him living in Poole. In his £500,000 house. Maybe. Still, he's got 9 grand form gofundme now. He can pay his furniture storage fees now.

Some people at Digital Spy have been rooting around. This story really doesn't stack up.

I think the Mail might regret this......

[TheGrimSqueaker]

More on the odd (and in my view, very dubious) story about the pensioner couple living at Heathrow.

The Mirror has a story on this which starts off with the couple's horror that anyone could think they might not be telling the truth and ends with a reasonable analysis of why they could be.....

Mr.Lane has, apparently, a state pension of £527PCM and an occupational pension of £292PCM and earned £7,000 last year. That's £18K - plus.
It strikes me as odd that he can't afford to rent a flat somewhere on that. Even if the Mail describes this income as "meagre".

According to a Canadian company called Jana Schilder, for whom he works/worked, he moved from London to Canada in January 2013. The Mail had him living in Poole. In his £500,000 house. Maybe. Still, he's got 9 grand form gofundme now. He can pay his furniture storage fees now.

Some people at Digital Spy have been rooting around. This story really doesn't stack up.

I think the Mail might regret this......

As I said yesterday, wouldn't be the first time the Mail got caught fabricating one of these types of stories.

[danesclose]

You certainly could OhSo.

The wife asked me if we wanted to go to see a film about how much 'stuff' we all had and how we were wrecking the planet by having so much stuff.

This is a woman who converted two stables to have watertight space to store her boxes of stuff, and had loft space created in two rooms in the house to store more...yes you've guessed.... stuff.

My favourite moment was when her husband was playing mine host one Christmas and we said we really liked the champagne...he said he'd got six bottles on a deal from Morrison's. Wife gave him a look that could have killed !

Still none of us are perfect.

But, really, did Blair take all our civil liberties away ?

Reminds me of the late, great George Carlin talking about "Stuff"
[youtube]MvgN5gCuLac[/youtube]

[Willow904]

More on the odd (and in my view, very dubious) story about the pensioner couple living at Heathrow.

The Mirror has a story on this which starts off with the couple's horror that anyone could think they might not be telling the truth and ends with a reasonable analysis of why they could be.....

Mr.Lane has, apparently, a state pension of £527PCM and an occupational pension of £292PCM and earned £7,000 last year. That's £18K - plus.
It strikes me as odd that he can't afford to rent a flat somewhere on that. Even if the Mail describes this income as "meagre".

According to a Canadian company called Jana Schilder, for whom he works/worked, he moved from London to Canada in January 2013. The Mail had him living in Poole. In his £500,000 house. Maybe. Still, he's got 9 grand form gofundme now. He can pay his furniture storage fees now.

Some people at Digital Spy have been rooting around. This story really doesn't stack up.

I think the Mail might regret this......

Thanks for this. I have been mulling this story over on and off since I read it yesterday. The £485 a month loan repayment in particular made no sense to me. It's only worth keeping up repayments on an unsecured loan if your hardship is only temporary. If you're homeless, it's time to give up on a clean credit history, I would have thought. Immediate demands on your finances would seem more important. Their various strange outgoings certainly explain why they can't get any state help - compared to most people they don't seem to need any, just a healthy dose of facing up to the realities of their situation. I'm willing to accept they are genuine and in possibly denial, rather than lying, but I still don't think they need any help. Anyone who donated to this cause are mugs, really. I wonder if the oh so lovely and compassionate response to the disabled guy who was mugged, who really did deserve all the good wishes and financial help he received, is going to be ruined by a spat of cynical chancers and con artists trying it on with hard luck stories. If the Mail ran a dodgy story without checks, that turns out to be a con and it puts people off donating to genuine hard luck cases, it would be a terrible shame and yet another case of the press making this country a worse, rather than a better, place to live with their thoughtless pursuit of headlines over social responsibility.

[ephemerid]

Ooooohhhhh!!!!!!

Yes, there's more.

Heathrow Cottages, where Alan Lane and Katrina Smith take their rest twice a week and do their laundry, is run by some people called Alan and Katrina... whose photos have mysteriously been removed from the advert on TripAdvisor.

I love a good coincidence, me. So does the Steeple Times.....

This whole thing smells distinctly un-rose-like to me. If the Mail has been duped, I am very very pleased. After all their battering of people who don't have two pennies to rub together, and their vile demonising of "scroungers", I'm inclined to think they published this tale of woe to bring their nasty readers some sort of riches-to-rags story to demonstrate how unfairly treated these poor deserving pensioners are.

I'm a lot less pleased that people who may have a lot less than this couple have donated thousands to help them. I think it's a scam.
Even if it isn't, the story doesn't stack up and these folks are, if any of the stuff on their income is true, are considerably richer than most of the people in this country who rely on benefits - yes, even those who work.

I don't have a lot of sympathy even if the story is true. If it isn't, I shall enjoy the unfolding embarrassment with deep joy.
Naughty? Yes. Do I care? No.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I seem to recall that Henry Porter had many a good outing beating up the last Labour government over civil liberties - very worked up too, he was about it. Apparently the FibDems and the Tories were going to sort it all out, and that our civil liberties were as safe as houses with them, and all the illiberal laws passed by the Stalinists would be repealed, job done.

He and the Graun do seem to have gone very, very quiet about the subject since. One might also consider that if you are starving, sanctioned, homeless and sick, not being wiretapped might come some way further down your list of 'must haves' behind food, a paid job, a secure home and good health.

Some of Porter's stuff looked dubious- there was one about parents not being able to go into a playground. To me that looked like... a playground, where kids could run about with a bit of space from adults.

He's pretty much a classic gullible liberal.

[ohsocynical]

Am I already dead and festering in some kind of ghastly personalised purgatory ...? In other words - what the hell is this?

Tories Target Ed hating Northern miners.jpg

The Sun Newsdesk ‏@SunNewsdesk 28m28 minutes ago
Exclusive: The Coal-ition — Tories target Ed-hating Northern miners http://sunpl.us/6019LRlT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now call me sceptical, but I live between Doncaster and Barnsley and the number of people who took time off work, when Thatcher died, was quite large. There were bonfires, fireworks and parties. I can't see a lot of them going Tory.

Their think tank hopes people will look at the pretty picture and say: Isn't that nice. I'm going to vote Conservative because the miners like them.

[StephenDolan]

Two articles by Rentoul mention Bill Thomas, the man whose surname Ed Balls forgot.

In this first piece dated 4th Feb, Thomas is semi-retired

http://goo.gl/yNisSC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the subsequent piece today, he is retired !

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/onl ... 31238.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would pull Rentoul on it if I could be arsed but frankly, I think I will just employ this emoticon to display my opinion of him

The two blokes on the newspaper review on BBC News24 this morning (sorry but I honestly can't remember their names although one of them was from "Esquire" magazine) were saying that Ed Balls' memory lapse was a load of fuss about nothing. Someone should tell John Rentoul.

And John Pienaar this morning. That was the biggest political story of the week apparently.

[ohsocynical]

Council tax up by 1.92 per cent and Government grant down by £56 a head

Reading Borough Council grapples with the austerity measures in its shrinking budget.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local- ... er-8600837

[ohsocynical]

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 20 hrs20 hours ago
Latest YouGov poll (05 - 06 Feb):
LAB - 33% (-)
CON - 32% (-)
UKIP - 15% (-)
GRN - 8% (+3)
LDEM - 7% (-2)