Showing posts with label Spending cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spending cuts. Show all posts
17 January 2012
14 January 2012
16 December 2011
13,500 Olympic troops - not needed
Two pieces of related news reach L.o.w.a towers. One - that the public purse is to stump up another £270 million to feed the insatiable apetite of the security industry (and its private 'consultants') and - two - more than 13,000 military personnel and equipment are to be deployed to 'protect the Olympics' at unknown cost.
The idea that people will be safer with a load of squaddies in Trafalgar Square or a naval launch in the River Lea is the sort of vain Bush/Blairite willy waving power show that promotes the country at its worst not its best. It is good intelligence, information and undercover operations that deal with the sort of terrorism directed at the west by non-state players. But that's neither glamourous or headline grabbing.
If Lib Dem ministers had any say on this decision (and I suspect they did not) I'd have hoped they would have pointed out two things. One - in times of austerity the country should not be stumping a single further penny for the Olympics when the IOC - one of the richest (and corrupt) organisations in the world - could easily pay for any security measures or ceremonies they see fit. And - two - a western liberal democracy does not routinely deploy armed troops on its streets regardless of what foreign jamboree is taking place on its shores at any time.
The idea that people will be safer with a load of squaddies in Trafalgar Square or a naval launch in the River Lea is the sort of vain Bush/Blairite willy waving power show that promotes the country at its worst not its best. It is good intelligence, information and undercover operations that deal with the sort of terrorism directed at the west by non-state players. But that's neither glamourous or headline grabbing.
If Lib Dem ministers had any say on this decision (and I suspect they did not) I'd have hoped they would have pointed out two things. One - in times of austerity the country should not be stumping a single further penny for the Olympics when the IOC - one of the richest (and corrupt) organisations in the world - could easily pay for any security measures or ceremonies they see fit. And - two - a western liberal democracy does not routinely deploy armed troops on its streets regardless of what foreign jamboree is taking place on its shores at any time.
29 November 2011
Time for a parents' strike?
With most schools closed tomorrow many millions of parents will not be able to go to work. While an extra day at home with the little darlings will be welcomed by many, those with jobs without the long term security of the public sector or the guaranteed publicly subsidised pensions (whether gold plated or not), or those self employed will be the big losers with another productive day wiped out by the selfish actions of the public sector unions.
The unions argue that their members are paying the price for bailing out the banks - which is simply untrue. Around half the deficit was caused by propping up the banks - the other the other half (the structural deficit) was spent by Brown, Balls and co on things like NHS computers that didn’t work, management consultants, ID cards, providing handouts to their client voters condemning them to dependency and the poverty trap and helping to crowd out entrepreneurialism.
So given the huge public sector spending splurge of the previous government - unfunded by current taxation - retrenchment was always going to be painful for the public sector - just as the crash of 2008-10 was very painful for the private sector.
The leadership of the public sector unions serve their members badly by calling these selfish, politically motivated strikes. As a result they will make things worse rather than better for their members in the long term.
The good will of parents (and no doubt other hit by these strikes) is running out - if teachers persist in disrupting children's education - parents who provide a huge financial and other commitment to the smooth running of most schools may start to feel less inclined to support teachers in their jobs.
At my childrens' schools parents are happy to volunteer in class rooms, talk to children about their experiences help with school trips and generally make life easier for pupils and teachers alike. The Parent School Association raises thousands of pounds each year for things like playground equipment, sports equipment, classroom pets and equipment, visits to school by authors, artists and musicians etc. Yes it provides a more interesting and diverse curriculum for the kids - it also makes the job of teaching them more rewarding.
So if this latest round of industrial foolishness causes fewer parents to participate in their schools (even if it is just to make up the pay lost through taking leave to cover the strike) teachers will lose out too.
So it's time for the trots at the top of the teaching unions to accept the inevitable, stop their undergraduate posturing and agree a deal that protects their members as best they can in harsh economic conditions and encourages a more benign view of the profession from parents (well from this one at least).
The unions argue that their members are paying the price for bailing out the banks - which is simply untrue. Around half the deficit was caused by propping up the banks - the other the other half (the structural deficit) was spent by Brown, Balls and co on things like NHS computers that didn’t work, management consultants, ID cards, providing handouts to their client voters condemning them to dependency and the poverty trap and helping to crowd out entrepreneurialism.
So given the huge public sector spending splurge of the previous government - unfunded by current taxation - retrenchment was always going to be painful for the public sector - just as the crash of 2008-10 was very painful for the private sector.
The leadership of the public sector unions serve their members badly by calling these selfish, politically motivated strikes. As a result they will make things worse rather than better for their members in the long term.
The good will of parents (and no doubt other hit by these strikes) is running out - if teachers persist in disrupting children's education - parents who provide a huge financial and other commitment to the smooth running of most schools may start to feel less inclined to support teachers in their jobs.
At my childrens' schools parents are happy to volunteer in class rooms, talk to children about their experiences help with school trips and generally make life easier for pupils and teachers alike. The Parent School Association raises thousands of pounds each year for things like playground equipment, sports equipment, classroom pets and equipment, visits to school by authors, artists and musicians etc. Yes it provides a more interesting and diverse curriculum for the kids - it also makes the job of teaching them more rewarding.
So if this latest round of industrial foolishness causes fewer parents to participate in their schools (even if it is just to make up the pay lost through taking leave to cover the strike) teachers will lose out too.
So it's time for the trots at the top of the teaching unions to accept the inevitable, stop their undergraduate posturing and agree a deal that protects their members as best they can in harsh economic conditions and encourages a more benign view of the profession from parents (well from this one at least).
21 November 2011
Charting the rise and fall of Nick Clegg...
An interesting academic take on recent history of Nick Clegg has been published by the LSE.
However I disagree with their fundamental point that Clegg appears to some sort of a victim of events outwith his control and a focus on personalities rather than policy. Clegg's fall (which has brought the Lib Dems down with him) are almost entirely of his own making and failure to communicate Liberal values and Lib Dem priorities in the first six to nine months of the coalition.
The widely held view that Clegg is some sort of lapdog to Cameron is entirely down to the strategy of 'owning the coalition' in the interest of economic stability in the early months of the coalition and the failure to communicate any sort of position over student support. That ground hasn't been made up - in fact the party's position has slipped - since a more argumentative position has been adopted by the party. The public rightly view this as a contrived reaction to the near wipeout the party faced at the polls last May.
But Clegg can turn his ratings (and therefore the party's) around. Earlier this year I carried out some focus group market research for the party in the north of England. The participants were clear that almost all the good will shown to Clegg in the 2010 election had now gone. He wasn’t seen to add anything distinctive to an essentially Conservative government.
But what these voters needed from Clegg and the party was a few clear messages about what the Lib Dems have and will achieve in government – along the lines of the £10,000 tax threshold. They would rather see Liberal Democrat ministers talking about what they are trying to achieve in government rather than justifying essentially Conservative spending cuts.
However I disagree with their fundamental point that Clegg appears to some sort of a victim of events outwith his control and a focus on personalities rather than policy. Clegg's fall (which has brought the Lib Dems down with him) are almost entirely of his own making and failure to communicate Liberal values and Lib Dem priorities in the first six to nine months of the coalition.
The widely held view that Clegg is some sort of lapdog to Cameron is entirely down to the strategy of 'owning the coalition' in the interest of economic stability in the early months of the coalition and the failure to communicate any sort of position over student support. That ground hasn't been made up - in fact the party's position has slipped - since a more argumentative position has been adopted by the party. The public rightly view this as a contrived reaction to the near wipeout the party faced at the polls last May.
But Clegg can turn his ratings (and therefore the party's) around. Earlier this year I carried out some focus group market research for the party in the north of England. The participants were clear that almost all the good will shown to Clegg in the 2010 election had now gone. He wasn’t seen to add anything distinctive to an essentially Conservative government.
But what these voters needed from Clegg and the party was a few clear messages about what the Lib Dems have and will achieve in government – along the lines of the £10,000 tax threshold. They would rather see Liberal Democrat ministers talking about what they are trying to achieve in government rather than justifying essentially Conservative spending cuts.
3 November 2011
Did Dave Prentis really admit this?
The Evening Standard this afternoon carried a quote in its print edition from UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentis, that 'we had worked hard to get our members to vote yes to strike action'. But sadly I cannot find it online.
Assuming I remembered it correctly this is a revealing admission. It shows the current trade union leadership is not interested in properly representing their members - instead they want to pursue a political vendetta against the government. Prentis and his well paid (and well pensioned) cronies among trade union leaders are very keen to repeat the mantra of 'ideologically driven' cuts. But it is clear there's only one side in this dispute being ideological - and that is the trade unions.
The sad thing is that ordinary trade union members are being appallingly badly served by their leaders ideological and political posturing.
Assuming I remembered it correctly this is a revealing admission. It shows the current trade union leadership is not interested in properly representing their members - instead they want to pursue a political vendetta against the government. Prentis and his well paid (and well pensioned) cronies among trade union leaders are very keen to repeat the mantra of 'ideologically driven' cuts. But it is clear there's only one side in this dispute being ideological - and that is the trade unions.
The sad thing is that ordinary trade union members are being appallingly badly served by their leaders ideological and political posturing.
1 November 2011
Economically illiterate, politically naive and fundamentally irrresponsible...
...that's my view of the 10 Liberal Democrats who put their name to a Guardian letter supporting the frankly bonkers Compass think tank's 'plan B'.
The plan is crazy - calling for a UK tobin tax on banking transactions. It also calls for rises in benefits to help those on 'low and middle incomes' and additional quantitative easing (presumably on top of that just announced by the Bank of England). And finally for an end to all public spending cuts and job losses. And the report is unspecific about how much this would cost - but presumably it would be a lot more than the additional tax revenues (if any) so created.
Liberals shouldn't be arguing for a welfare state so bloated it encompasses those on middle incomes - nor for a tax that without coordinated international action is guaranteed to send the finance sector offshore.
And as for the idea that the public sector has contracted over the past year - today's growth figures reveal the government and other services sector grew by 0.5% in Q3 of 2011. Full details can be found here. In fact over the next four years government spending is set to rise by £40bn.
And by going public in the way they have the 10 Lib Dems have allowed themselves to become Labour's patsies and have given the media the opportunity to embarrass the party and create division where none exist. Some of the 10 ought to know better whereas Linda Jack and Richard Grayson have form.
The irony is that the 10 are some of those who have argued for a looser 'supply and confidence' arrangement instead of full blown coalition with the Conservatives. Under these circumstances the party would have been expected to support a Tory only budget - rather than one with strong Lib Dem strands running through it.
The plan is crazy - calling for a UK tobin tax on banking transactions. It also calls for rises in benefits to help those on 'low and middle incomes' and additional quantitative easing (presumably on top of that just announced by the Bank of England). And finally for an end to all public spending cuts and job losses. And the report is unspecific about how much this would cost - but presumably it would be a lot more than the additional tax revenues (if any) so created.
Liberals shouldn't be arguing for a welfare state so bloated it encompasses those on middle incomes - nor for a tax that without coordinated international action is guaranteed to send the finance sector offshore.
And as for the idea that the public sector has contracted over the past year - today's growth figures reveal the government and other services sector grew by 0.5% in Q3 of 2011. Full details can be found here. In fact over the next four years government spending is set to rise by £40bn.
And by going public in the way they have the 10 Lib Dems have allowed themselves to become Labour's patsies and have given the media the opportunity to embarrass the party and create division where none exist. Some of the 10 ought to know better whereas Linda Jack and Richard Grayson have form.
The irony is that the 10 are some of those who have argued for a looser 'supply and confidence' arrangement instead of full blown coalition with the Conservatives. Under these circumstances the party would have been expected to support a Tory only budget - rather than one with strong Lib Dem strands running through it.
3 October 2011
Where the School Food Trust can stick their lunchbox...
An organisation called the School Food Trust has issued a report critising the content of the average school lunch box and by association the average parents who fill them.
Instead of sandwiches and a bag of crisps they suggest parents should include such delicacies as:
- Butternut squash soup with wholegrain bread
- Cous cous with roasted vegetables and chickpeas
- Wholegrain pasta salad with tomatoes, green beans and sweetcorn in green pesto sauce
- Low-fat cream cheese on wholegrain cracker with grapes
Now apart from the logistical problems of trying to get a six year old to safely transport soup to school, one wonders if those at the Schools Food Trust have actually tried to feed said child cous cous, chickpeas or wholegrain crackers?
This sort of out of touch nannying simply raises the hackles of hard pressed parents and turns the attention to the people and the organisation that can come up with this nonsense.
And being a publicly funded body they conveniently provide their statement of accounts on line.
And in it we find in 2010/11 the Schools Food Trust received more than £11.5 million from the public purse. Its Chief Executive, Judy Haragon, was paid £95,000 with a pension worth £143,000 - £35,000 more than 2010. In total its senior staff were paid a cool quarter of a million and they still found a £15,000 bung to retain the services of a celebrity chef.
Given the state of the public finances, cutting needless spending is a prerequisite. And it seems to me the Schools Food Trust is a pretty good place to start.
Instead of sandwiches and a bag of crisps they suggest parents should include such delicacies as:
- Butternut squash soup with wholegrain bread
- Cous cous with roasted vegetables and chickpeas
- Wholegrain pasta salad with tomatoes, green beans and sweetcorn in green pesto sauce
- Low-fat cream cheese on wholegrain cracker with grapes
Now apart from the logistical problems of trying to get a six year old to safely transport soup to school, one wonders if those at the Schools Food Trust have actually tried to feed said child cous cous, chickpeas or wholegrain crackers?
This sort of out of touch nannying simply raises the hackles of hard pressed parents and turns the attention to the people and the organisation that can come up with this nonsense.
And being a publicly funded body they conveniently provide their statement of accounts on line.
And in it we find in 2010/11 the Schools Food Trust received more than £11.5 million from the public purse. Its Chief Executive, Judy Haragon, was paid £95,000 with a pension worth £143,000 - £35,000 more than 2010. In total its senior staff were paid a cool quarter of a million and they still found a £15,000 bung to retain the services of a celebrity chef.
Given the state of the public finances, cutting needless spending is a prerequisite. And it seems to me the Schools Food Trust is a pretty good place to start.
30 September 2011
It's time to recycle Eric Pickles
I was going to comment on today's announcement from the local government department of a quarter of a billion pound bribe to local authorities to reintroduce weekly bin collections - but Eaten by Missionaries got there first.
But soon the real debate will surely move on to the role and purpose of the local government department itself. If councils are going to have autonomy to decide on the form and level of local services - why do they still have a man in Whitehall telling them that he knows best?
Abolition of the DCLG would free up local government from pointless interference and save a vast amount of cash in these austere times. Enough for a few chicken tikka masalas I'd imagine...
But soon the real debate will surely move on to the role and purpose of the local government department itself. If councils are going to have autonomy to decide on the form and level of local services - why do they still have a man in Whitehall telling them that he knows best?
Abolition of the DCLG would free up local government from pointless interference and save a vast amount of cash in these austere times. Enough for a few chicken tikka masalas I'd imagine...
26 September 2011
Balls in fantasy land
Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, is doing the rounds of Labour conference apologising for getting some things wrong on the economy while they were in power. He has also launched a vacuous and wrong slogan 'Building schools and hospitals did not create the deficit', by way of non-apology over the government's structural deficit.
Except that it did - and saddled the UK tax payer with expensive 'off book' PFI deals that transfer money out of public services and into the bottom lines of private construction companies for years to come. Estimates suggest that the tax payer will end up paying 10 times the value of the capital assets involved.
So when Balls asks people to take him and his party seriously on the economy I hope people remeber just how much of their money he wasted needlessly on PFI - among other failures such as IT.
And thanks to the BBC Politics Show archive you can still view the wonderful attack on Balls as 'a 27 year old researcher' by Michael Heseltine at the Tory conference in 1994.
Danny Alexander take note...
Except that it did - and saddled the UK tax payer with expensive 'off book' PFI deals that transfer money out of public services and into the bottom lines of private construction companies for years to come. Estimates suggest that the tax payer will end up paying 10 times the value of the capital assets involved.
So when Balls asks people to take him and his party seriously on the economy I hope people remeber just how much of their money he wasted needlessly on PFI - among other failures such as IT.
And thanks to the BBC Politics Show archive you can still view the wonderful attack on Balls as 'a 27 year old researcher' by Michael Heseltine at the Tory conference in 1994.
Danny Alexander take note...
24 April 2011
Teaching trots need to get real
The news that every teaching union is to take strike action to defend their generous publicly funded final salary pension scheme is not surprising, but it is futile and insulting to the millions of people who work without complaint on far less generous terms and conditions.
But the far left leadership of the teaching unions will no doubt point to the pressure and importance of the job, along with some headline grabbing below average salary levels (for trainees). But the fact that they get away with this is more a product of the hideously complex, opaque and lengthy terms and conditions issued by government.
You can download the 195 page document here if you are having trouble sleeping, but they seem to suggest the following levels of salary for qualified teachers:
£21,588 - £31,552 (outside London) plus £3-5K for those in London. Teachers salaries increase in £1.5k increments so in just six years they reach the top of the scale.
But they also have something called 'a post threshold scale' - presumably something to guarantee annual payrises for teachers after year six. That would take an 'ordinary' qualified teacher (outside London) from £31,552 to £36,756 in a further three years and to £40-45k in London.
But it doesn't end there...
There are also allowances called 'Teaching and learning responsibility payments' which are made for 'for the purpose of ensuring the continued delivery of high-quality teaching and learning and for which the teacher is made accountable.' Otherwise known as 'doing your job'. These payments range between £2,535 and £12,393.
So nine years after qualification your 'ordinary' classroom teachers could be earning between £39,000 and £49,000 outside London and £47,000 and £59,000 in London.
But it doesn't end there...
There are additional pay scales for 'Advanced skilled teachers' and 'excellent teachers'
Advanced skills teachers get paid between £37,461 and £56,950 outside London and between £40,433 and £64,036 in London.
Excellent teachers are guaranteed between £39,697 and £52,090 outside London and between £43,668 and £60,993 in London.
Oh and pay scales are 'safeguarded' even if the responsibilities for which they are paid end.
Of course teachers may get promoted. Head teachers salary scales start at £42,379 outside London and finish at a shade over £100k. Within London they start at £45,351 and finish at nearly £112,200
Teachers pay 6.4% and their employers (you and me) 14% of their salaries into their pension scheme.
I'm sure they will get a sympathetic hearing from the millions of private sector workers who have taken a pay cut in recent years, lost their jobs or have to make do with a contribution based pension scheme. The day they will take off work to look after their kids while the teachers are indulging in trotskyite fantasies will come out of their 20 day holiday entitlement - assuming they are still in a job.
But the far left leadership of the teaching unions will no doubt point to the pressure and importance of the job, along with some headline grabbing below average salary levels (for trainees). But the fact that they get away with this is more a product of the hideously complex, opaque and lengthy terms and conditions issued by government.
You can download the 195 page document here if you are having trouble sleeping, but they seem to suggest the following levels of salary for qualified teachers:
£21,588 - £31,552 (outside London) plus £3-5K for those in London. Teachers salaries increase in £1.5k increments so in just six years they reach the top of the scale.
But they also have something called 'a post threshold scale' - presumably something to guarantee annual payrises for teachers after year six. That would take an 'ordinary' qualified teacher (outside London) from £31,552 to £36,756 in a further three years and to £40-45k in London.
But it doesn't end there...
There are also allowances called 'Teaching and learning responsibility payments' which are made for 'for the purpose of ensuring the continued delivery of high-quality teaching and learning and for which the teacher is made accountable.' Otherwise known as 'doing your job'. These payments range between £2,535 and £12,393.
So nine years after qualification your 'ordinary' classroom teachers could be earning between £39,000 and £49,000 outside London and £47,000 and £59,000 in London.
But it doesn't end there...
There are additional pay scales for 'Advanced skilled teachers' and 'excellent teachers'
Advanced skills teachers get paid between £37,461 and £56,950 outside London and between £40,433 and £64,036 in London.
Excellent teachers are guaranteed between £39,697 and £52,090 outside London and between £43,668 and £60,993 in London.
Oh and pay scales are 'safeguarded' even if the responsibilities for which they are paid end.
Of course teachers may get promoted. Head teachers salary scales start at £42,379 outside London and finish at a shade over £100k. Within London they start at £45,351 and finish at nearly £112,200
Teachers pay 6.4% and their employers (you and me) 14% of their salaries into their pension scheme.
I'm sure they will get a sympathetic hearing from the millions of private sector workers who have taken a pay cut in recent years, lost their jobs or have to make do with a contribution based pension scheme. The day they will take off work to look after their kids while the teachers are indulging in trotskyite fantasies will come out of their 20 day holiday entitlement - assuming they are still in a job.
4 April 2011
Social Liberal Forum lose the plot
I received an email this morning from a supporter of the Social Liberal Forum asking me to back their campaign calling for the government's health policy to be amended in four specific ways.
Two of which are sensible and uncontroversial - providing more local democratic accountability and slowing down the pace of change to help the NHS through its toughest settlement for decades and avoiding another massive reorganisation.
The third is some fairly meaningless waffle about market reform and cherrypicking profitable services (surely impossible unless the NHS charged market rates for its services), so can probably be safely ignored.
But the fourth is frankly crazy - and sadly is what party reps voted for at the recent spring assembly. It calls on the party to 'ensure the Health Secretary had a duty to provide a fully comprehensive and free health service, with no gaps and no new charges'
Fully comprehensive and no gaps - really? This means that every NHS facility in every part of the country should offer the same fully comprehensive service - so leafy Surrey should have the same facilities to fight alcohol and drug related disease as Glasgow council schemes. Diseases of affluence should be taken as seriously in Hull as is Havant. Its clearly either prohibitively expensive and wasteful or egalitarian nonsense and should be opposed by liberals and anyone who believes in localism.
Needless to say I won't be signing it - but if anyone wants to either sign it or find out more the link is here: Forward to a better yesterday
Two of which are sensible and uncontroversial - providing more local democratic accountability and slowing down the pace of change to help the NHS through its toughest settlement for decades and avoiding another massive reorganisation.
The third is some fairly meaningless waffle about market reform and cherrypicking profitable services (surely impossible unless the NHS charged market rates for its services), so can probably be safely ignored.
But the fourth is frankly crazy - and sadly is what party reps voted for at the recent spring assembly. It calls on the party to 'ensure the Health Secretary had a duty to provide a fully comprehensive and free health service, with no gaps and no new charges'
Fully comprehensive and no gaps - really? This means that every NHS facility in every part of the country should offer the same fully comprehensive service - so leafy Surrey should have the same facilities to fight alcohol and drug related disease as Glasgow council schemes. Diseases of affluence should be taken as seriously in Hull as is Havant. Its clearly either prohibitively expensive and wasteful or egalitarian nonsense and should be opposed by liberals and anyone who believes in localism.
Needless to say I won't be signing it - but if anyone wants to either sign it or find out more the link is here: Forward to a better yesterday
31 March 2011
A good Labour council?
Labour leader Ed Miliband launched his party’s local election campaign today saying he was ‘proud’ of the way Labour councils' had reacted to the cuts and promoting ‘good’ Labour councillors who were making difficult decisions.
This can only be described as an unusual take on the reality, but sadly very much in line with their view that spending cuts are actually avoidable.
So how does this view shape up to the reality? In Labour’s flagship Southwark – snatched by a whisker on general election day from the Lib Dems – they recently passed their budget, cutting (among others) - five play centres, 12 lollipop ladies, old peoples’ lunch clubs, the mobile and housebound library services and old peoples day centres. All valued front line services to the vulnerable. And yet they managed to add £5 million to its healthy (Lib Dem inherited) £86 million reserves.
I can’t think of a clearer example of politically motivated cuts designed to scare the elderly and vulnerable while squirreling away vast sums for pre election bribes.
But what about those ‘good’ Labour councillors that Mili minor is so proud of?
Well there was Labour councillor Evrim Laws – thrown off the council on the day before polling day in 2010 for failing to attend any meetings in a sixth month period. But this didn’t prevent her claiming more than £10,000 in allowances and expenses.
Then there’s Keadean Rhoden who was elected in May 2010, charged with benefit fraud (not for the first time) in June 2010, convicted in October 2010, and who finally resigned from the council in March 2011. Cost to the taxpayer of allowances = £7,500.
But it doesn’t end there – it moves on to the sinister.
Blogging Labour Cllr Stephen Govier forgot to tell his Labour colleagues while being approved as a candidate about his three year jail term in the US for shooting someone in the head in an apparently drug related shooting. Cllr Govier remains a councillor in Camberwell and Peckham – one of the UK’s drug and gun crime hotspots – claiming his annual allowance of £10,500.
And last but certainly not least there is now ex-Cllr John Friary who resigned from the council (and its cabinet) in January 2011 after being arrested on child sex grooming charges. As a full time executive councillor he was paid more than £40,000 on top of his £10,500 allowance.
So there you have it – a tale of deceit, fraud, gun crime and child sex. Is this what Ed Miliband means by ‘good’ Labour councils?
This can only be described as an unusual take on the reality, but sadly very much in line with their view that spending cuts are actually avoidable.
So how does this view shape up to the reality? In Labour’s flagship Southwark – snatched by a whisker on general election day from the Lib Dems – they recently passed their budget, cutting (among others) - five play centres, 12 lollipop ladies, old peoples’ lunch clubs, the mobile and housebound library services and old peoples day centres. All valued front line services to the vulnerable. And yet they managed to add £5 million to its healthy (Lib Dem inherited) £86 million reserves.
I can’t think of a clearer example of politically motivated cuts designed to scare the elderly and vulnerable while squirreling away vast sums for pre election bribes.
But what about those ‘good’ Labour councillors that Mili minor is so proud of?
Well there was Labour councillor Evrim Laws – thrown off the council on the day before polling day in 2010 for failing to attend any meetings in a sixth month period. But this didn’t prevent her claiming more than £10,000 in allowances and expenses.
Then there’s Keadean Rhoden who was elected in May 2010, charged with benefit fraud (not for the first time) in June 2010, convicted in October 2010, and who finally resigned from the council in March 2011. Cost to the taxpayer of allowances = £7,500.
But it doesn’t end there – it moves on to the sinister.
And last but certainly not least there is now ex-Cllr John Friary who resigned from the council (and its cabinet) in January 2011 after being arrested on child sex grooming charges. As a full time executive councillor he was paid more than £40,000 on top of his £10,500 allowance.
So there you have it – a tale of deceit, fraud, gun crime and child sex. Is this what Ed Miliband means by ‘good’ Labour councils?
27 March 2011
Ed Miliband - the alternative Conservative?
The idea that the consequences of a mild tightening in fiscal policy can be compared to liberation struggles would be laughable if it wasn't so insulting to people who actually suffered with their lives and liberty.
But that's indeed the message Mili minor wanted to convey to the thronged masses of thedowntrodden and oppressed um above average earners with publicly subsidised final salary pensions at the whinge fest in central London today.
But the real question is that given the marchers clearly contain huge numbers of well educated people in good jobs why they didn't see through the vacuousness of the 'Alternative' they were marching for.
If you check out their website they say: 'We do not set out a detailed policy mix' and 'It even makes sense to borrow more in the short-term if that encourages enough economic growth' as part of their section on discovering the alternatives.
So no alternative from the 'March for the alternative' other than a hope for more of the same.
So there you have it - the new conservatives: Mili minor's Labour.
But that's indeed the message Mili minor wanted to convey to the thronged masses of the
But the real question is that given the marchers clearly contain huge numbers of well educated people in good jobs why they didn't see through the vacuousness of the 'Alternative' they were marching for.
If you check out their website they say: 'We do not set out a detailed policy mix' and 'It even makes sense to borrow more in the short-term if that encourages enough economic growth' as part of their section on discovering the alternatives.
So no alternative from the 'March for the alternative' other than a hope for more of the same.
So there you have it - the new conservatives: Mili minor's Labour.
23 March 2011
Exclusive - leaked preview of Labour's budget response
A document has come into my hands purporting to be Labour's response to this afternoon's budget.
And here is what it says Mili minor is planning to say:
"Too fast, too deep.
It's just like buying a house. You don't pay it back in five years.
Hard working families.
Borrow to create jobs.
Growth strategy. Jobs strategy.
Idealogically driven cuts. Worse than Thatcher.
Oh did I mention hard working families?"
I have to say although it's Miliband's job to respond the content has a reek of Balls about it.
And here is what it says Mili minor is planning to say:
"Too fast, too deep.
It's just like buying a house. You don't pay it back in five years.
Hard working families.
Borrow to create jobs.
Growth strategy. Jobs strategy.
Idealogically driven cuts. Worse than Thatcher.
Oh did I mention hard working families?"
I have to say although it's Miliband's job to respond the content has a reek of Balls about it.
10 March 2011
Manchester police expose themselves...
... both to ridicule for pettifogging jobsworthyness and lack of irony.
The BBC sub headline in the article refers to a 'stormy' council meeting agreeing £109 million of cuts. One assumes redacting football supporters' car stickers will cease to be a priority...
The BBC sub headline in the article refers to a 'stormy' council meeting agreeing £109 million of cuts. One assumes redacting football supporters' car stickers will cease to be a priority...
2 March 2011
When is a pay freeze a pay cut?
When it's reported by the BBC.
At no point is Teresa May directly quoted as saying she wants police officers to be paid less. She calls for them to be part of the public sector pay freeze and for the various bonuses and overtime payents to be reviewed.
Despite being one of the most respected media and news organisations in the world, there really are times when their institutional biases get in the way. And I think sadly the coming public spending cuts will be one area where self interest, unionisation and metropolitan elite attitudes will get in the way of the Beeb's usual good journalism.
At no point is Teresa May directly quoted as saying she wants police officers to be paid less. She calls for them to be part of the public sector pay freeze and for the various bonuses and overtime payents to be reviewed.
Despite being one of the most respected media and news organisations in the world, there really are times when their institutional biases get in the way. And I think sadly the coming public spending cuts will be one area where self interest, unionisation and metropolitan elite attitudes will get in the way of the Beeb's usual good journalism.
8 February 2011
Voluntary sector addicted to government handouts
In all the fuss about the 'big society' - whatever it means - the absurdity of the 'professional' voluntary sector has got lost.
This morning we had the sight of Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, outgoing director of the council for voluntary service, complaining to BBC breakfast, that spending cuts made the big society impossible. One of her reasons was that they needed government money so that they could get their volunteers' criminal records checked.
That simple juxtaposition shows just how the state under Labour got too mighty and overweaning and ought to show to forward looking leaders in the voluntary sector that reductions in public spending are an opportunity not a threat. Sadly for people like Dame Elisabeth, many have clearly become so addicted to public cash that the threat of its withdrawal makes them act like some shambolic smack addict who cannot see past their next fix.
This morning we had the sight of Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, outgoing director of the council for voluntary service, complaining to BBC breakfast, that spending cuts made the big society impossible. One of her reasons was that they needed government money so that they could get their volunteers' criminal records checked.
That simple juxtaposition shows just how the state under Labour got too mighty and overweaning and ought to show to forward looking leaders in the voluntary sector that reductions in public spending are an opportunity not a threat. Sadly for people like Dame Elisabeth, many have clearly become so addicted to public cash that the threat of its withdrawal makes them act like some shambolic smack addict who cannot see past their next fix.
11 January 2011
Ratcliffe-on-Soar police mole shows why public spending cuts are needed
The bizarre case of the undercover police officer who spent seven years with climate change protestors before his apparent switch of sides and the possibility that he was actually inciting protestors to break the law raises many questions - not just about police tactics and competence.
It is clear that for organisations like the Met police money has been no object on cases like these. The fact that those they were pursuing were generally well meaning people (whether you think they are misguided or not) - who provided no threat of violence - let alone terrorism showed a wasteful lack of prioritisation. One might say the Met had more money than sense.
With lower budgets in the coming years, as the coalition cleans up 13 years of Labour waste and incompetence, one hopes that the public servants like the police will not only be less cavalier with civil liberties but more careful on how they spend our money. Hopefully, the spending cuts will expose the waste, inefficiency and featherbedding of senior public servants that has taken place over the last few years.
Given the vast increases in cash that were ploughed into public services and the small increases in outcomes that resulted, it is clear that spending cuts should not lead to the kind of service cuts that Labour, the unions and sadly some misguided people in the Lib Dems seem happy to scaremonger about.
I'll leave it to the protesters' defence lawyer to sum up:
It is clear that for organisations like the Met police money has been no object on cases like these. The fact that those they were pursuing were generally well meaning people (whether you think they are misguided or not) - who provided no threat of violence - let alone terrorism showed a wasteful lack of prioritisation. One might say the Met had more money than sense.
With lower budgets in the coming years, as the coalition cleans up 13 years of Labour waste and incompetence, one hopes that the public servants like the police will not only be less cavalier with civil liberties but more careful on how they spend our money. Hopefully, the spending cuts will expose the waste, inefficiency and featherbedding of senior public servants that has taken place over the last few years.
Given the vast increases in cash that were ploughed into public services and the small increases in outcomes that resulted, it is clear that spending cuts should not lead to the kind of service cuts that Labour, the unions and sadly some misguided people in the Lib Dems seem happy to scaremonger about.
I'll leave it to the protesters' defence lawyer to sum up:
"Serious questions must be asked relating to the whole policing of this protest, from the use of undercover police officers, to the use of expensive and legally questionable mass pre-emptive arrests, to the use of pre-charge unaccountable bail conditions, to the seemingly arbitrary nature by which the 114 initially arrested were reduced to the final 26 who were eventually charged."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)