Category Archives: Tories’ Porkies

A track of articles which expose our Tory friends for being, well, a little economical with the truth.

‘Nasty Party’? I think we’re beyond that now…

by maxattacks

Martin Rowson 5.01.2013

So how much of the Welfare budget do you reckon is spent on unemployed people? 42%? How much do you reckon is claimed fraudulently from the Welfare budget? 27%? Who do you reckon will be hit most by the 1% limit on benefits, the unemployed “scroungers”? And how much do you reckon is given to the skiving “scrounging” b*rstards on Job Seeker’s allowance (2 kids aged 6 and 10) a week? £147?

If you’d given answers close or on the same as the ones suggested, well, then, you’re completely full of sh*t.

This is what was revealed in a YouGov poll where respondents gave answers similar to the ones suggested. Want to know the real answers?

  1. Welfare budget spent on unemployed people? – 4% not 42%.
  2. Welfare budget claimed fraudulently? 0.7% not 27%
  3. Who will be hit most by the 1% limit on benefits? – Primarily the employed and those seeking work.
  4. And average weekly Job Seeker allowance? – £111.45 not £147.

(Don’t believe me, check the link above).

This is of course shadowed by the outright attempt by Conservative HQ’s attempts to divide the nation like never before by turning the working poor on the unemployed poor (most of whom are seeking work).

While instead, this is the poster they should have published.

I’m tired of this, I’m tired of the demonisation and scapegoating of the poor. But hey, why try solve society’s real problems when you can lie and create scapegoats out of the most vulnerable in society?

Max

I opposed Equal Marriage no longer

by bulsonline

Among the two years of Coalition government that Britain has been subjected to there has been little to smile about. There is no need to list the ‘omnishambles’ here, even those who have better things to do with their time than check the tweetings of the political geekery are well versed in just how inept and backward this government’s policies are. Then, all of a sudden, there appeared a ray of hope, a reason to celebrate, perhaps this Cameron fella ain’t so bad after all – he wants to introduce Equal Marriage.

I read with despair the comments of those supportive of Equal Marriage and I wanted to shout: ‘Can you not see the mind-forged manacles of institutionalism that Marriage (in any form) brings?!’. The Gay Liberation Front, nurtured on the campus at LSE in the early 70s was very clear in its view, condemning on page 2 in The Gay Manifesto the ‘archaic and irrational teaching [that] support the family and marriage as the only permitted conditions for sex.’ The Gay Liberation Front’s key theme was anti-assimilation. Gay people were equal, sure, but they were different as well, and as such should play no role in conforming to the ‘archaic’ institutions and cultural practises that made up Britain’s history. It was this direct, ‘in-yer-face’ attitude which makes the GLF so important to Gay history in Britain. The concept of Marriage could play no part in their ‘aim at the abolition of the family.’ (p.9)

I for one oppose marriage. I agree with the GLF when they stated that ‘we will not be freed so long as each succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the patriarchal family.’ It would have been hypocritical of me, I believed, to oppose marriage, but be in favour of Equal Marriage.

I then looked to see who also opposed Equal Marriage. I could find nobody that shared my opinion on the fundamentally unjust nature of marriage. Instead it was a collection of knee-jerk Tory MPs (the dusty and offensive Peter Bones of this world) and irrelevant Church Minsters, whose quest to preserve ‘traditional family values’ was little more than thinly veiled homophobia and ignorance. These people seem to advocate human rights, as long as this doesn’t stretch to sexuality equality. And I was not prepared to enter this unholy coalition.

It then dawned on me that my argument was flawed. Basically, I was being an academic elitist, pontificating from the comforts of a university on how ‘blinkered’ everyone was apart from me. (I once heard this described as ‘intellectual masturbation’).

So if gay couples wish to show their love to one another and society at large by entering the traditional institution of marriage then there is absolutely no argument, certainly morally, why this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Sign me up as a convert. Just don’t expect any Queer Radicals to be heading up the aisle any time soon.

By Dan Harrison, former BULS Chair

Chris Grayling to reduce unemployment by One.

by Nash

Chris Grayling, in case you didn’t already know, is the Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell, and Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions. He is also a lying bastard and has dreadful communication skills. His efforts tackling the worst unemployment among young people in generations have been lacklustre to say the least. He, alongside faux-compassionate conservative Iain Duncan Smith, is the government’s standard bearer for punitive schemes designed to punish and exploit the unemployed. He has used his position of power and privilege to slander and misrepresent the characters and causes of anyone who dares speak against him. When the inequities of his schemes are highlighted, he resorts to spin and bare faced lies. In short, he is an evil, hateful, immoral little man.

Image

The quite excellent Johnny Void documents more fully Grayling and the DWP’s shameful back-story. Today I come to credit Grayling. In between selling our youth as slaves and branding the Archbishop of Canterbury a militant Trotskyite, he has successfully created one new job. Just the one. Here [link].

I know from experience that jobs working for MPs can receive hundreds of applications for a single position. In this case there may be fewer, given what any politically aware unemployed person will know about Grayling. But if Hell itself were looking for part-time bar staff, even Satan might receive CVs from desperate job hunters. When hundreds of people apply for one position, 99% of those are mathematically guaranteed to be unsuccessful. How will Grayling reconcile these masses of doomed applicants with his wider responsibility for policy? Will he realise that his hateful ideology is wrong in blaming individuals for economic circumstances far beyond their control?

Here’s an idea. The deadline for this job is not until Monday (23rd). The essential qualifications and requirements are actually very low. Any young person who has passed a handful of GCSEs could, with a minimal amount of on the job training, perform the advertised role. I’m going to apply. You should to. So should everyone who is currently unemployed, and even those who aren’t but who will need a job in the near future. We’re all qualified. Assuming that the position is filled on a loosely meritocratic basis, we should all have a fair chance of consideration.

If, by Monday morning, Grayling’s office inbox is fit to bursting with job applications (“the standard was very high”) then maybe, just maybe, he’ll start to consider the massive competition that exists for even the most basic of jobs. Maybe he’ll begin to appreciate just how many individuals are trapped in limbo by a lack of opportunities. Maybe (and this is a long shot) he’ll cut us some slack, stop using his departmental jackboot to bully and intimidate, and start creating real jobs, beyond making cups of tea in his constituency office.

It won’t take long. Thirty minutes to draft a covering letter, and any good student/graduate job-hunter should have a CV to hand, one that can be appropriately tweaked. Grayling may endorse lying, but I encourage honesty, these should be genuine applications. I could put an example here, but several hundred individual submissions will carry far more weight than a thousand copy and pastes. Apply. Apply now! If you’re really lucky – and I mean really lucky – you might just end up working for the Right Honourable Member.

The ad in full (courtesy of w4mpjobs):

Image

The Bankers’ Budget

by Nash
Nobody would expect a fair budget from George Osborne. The Chancellor was never going to give a budget that benefitted the many over the few, or one that put the realities of everyday life above right-wing economic dogma. Expectations suitably adjusted, we can perhaps take small comfort from the 50p tax band “only” being cut to 45p. Ed Miliband gave a sterling speech in response, and I raise a glass to the intern who wrote the jokes. Professional hacks will be casting their own analysis; what follows is my personal take on some of the details.
 
The Chancellor’s big spin on this budget is that it “rewards work”.  We already know that under-18s are to endure a cut in the minimum wage. In the UK it is possible to work a 40-hour week and still live in poverty. The way to make work pay is, surprisingly enough, to actually make work pay, by implementing a proper living wage. Today we heard no commitment on improving the pay of the low paid. It would be naive to ever expect one from a Tory Chancellor. Increasing the income tax threshold seems reasonable, but not when even the poorest are still hit by VAT, and duty on fuel, alcohol and tobacco. What Osborne gives with one hand, he takes several times over with the other.
 
Projections for economic growth and for a fall in unemployment are welcomed.I only hope they hold true. As far as I am aware the budget made no specific commitments relating to the latter. I fear that further cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions will only result in more inhumane box-ticking and the harassment of the vulnerable. The Government – as ever – has put all its faith in the hands of the wonderful private sector.
 
On the 50p rate, the detail most comprehensively leaked, news was always going to be disappointing. Having endured two years of the government chaffing on about deficit reduction, one could at least have assumed that they intended to maximise tax revenue. Basic maths will tell anyone that a 50p rate will raise more by its presence than its absence (“Laffer Curve” / wishful thinking / pseudoscience aside). Osborne himself stated that the rate raised around £1 billion. To me a lot, to him “next to nothing”. Cutting it will cost £100m. That’s a lot of disabled children who will have to go without.
 
The moral case for the 50p rate is even more clear cut – there can be no reason why someone “earning” in excess of £150,000 per year needs a penny more. Greed can be the only motive, and the one which leads to tax evasion and avoidance. It will be argued that such non-payment means that the tax rate might as well be cut. Just apply this same rational to other crimes such as burglary and murder – “You’re never going to catch every criminal, might as well legalise it!” – to see what a fallacy it is.
 
Tax evasion is “morally repugnant” according to Osborne. It is hard to shake off that dirty feeling that comes from agreeing with him – especially given those are often my own words. Tax evasion, and avoidance, are both morally reprehensible. They are as much a theft from the community as your typical off-licence robbery, in scale perhaps more so. The problem is that Osborne is the last person I would expect to do anything about it. I fear that despite pledges to the contrary, he will be all talk and no trousers. Every spending decision taken thus far by the government has convinced me that it is a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
 
Miliband’s best line came when he challenged the government front bench to admit who among them personally benefit from the budget. Furthermore it is worth considering how many prominent Tory donors will also benefit. Such borderline conflict of interest makes a mockery of democracy – and will certainly not be reported in the Tory press. The headlines will trumpet crumbs from the rich men’s table, and ignore the widening inequality that will be a direct result of Osborne’s decisions.
 
Labour should commit to restoring the 50p band, and to actually getting serious on tax fraud, just as we should commit to renationalising the NHS. Anything less will be to continue to concede to the rightward drift of our national political discourse.
By Chris Nash

Ich bin ein Trot

by Nash

In the past week the “progressive” mask of the Tory party has all but disintegrated. Once again, boggle-eyed theories of “the enemy within” have been aired. By now most people in the country will be aware of the morally repulsive government scheme that is workfare. Anyone with a heart and a social conscience will be opposing it.

According to Grayling and IDS though, we opponents are just a tiny “unrepresentative” bunch of extremist “trots”. Ah yes, “trots”, meaning trotskyists; because if you can’t counter an argument with logic, reason and facts, then why not descend into slurs, name-calling and ad homninum? I have used the term “trots” in the past to refer to left-wing opponents. It was wrong of me then, being both ignorant and a lazy and knee-jerk form of argument. All in all its use by the government signifies an intellectual unwillingness to engage in the issues.

Yet what can we expect from men who so clearly do not know the difference between right and wrong? Already they have lied through their teeth about the “voluntary” nature of workfare. Government documents are, even now, being fabricated or hidden from official websites. The DWP, as always, peddles its Orwellian propaganda. Everyone who has first hand experience of the Job Centre and these schemes knows that Grayling and IDS are open liars. When brave individuals like Cait Reilly have dared to stand up against workfare, they have been mercilessly slurred and slandered in the Tory press. Now there are threats of a heavy police presence at future workfare protests – presumably to intimidate the vulnerable into compliance.

I am against workfare because I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work. I oppose businesses exploiting the free labour of the unemployed. I oppose the unemployed being punished for economic circumstances beyond their control. I oppose undermining the wages of paid employees by working for free. I oppose already rich individuals and shareholders profiting from forced and unpaid labour.

According to Grayling and IDS, all this makes me an “extremist” and a “trot”. This being so, all hail Comrade Trotsky!

By Chris Nash

The old fetish

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell 11 December 2011

Friday was the day the old fetish returned. The day Cameron delved into nostalgia. And the day he set Britain at odds not only with the other 26 EU member states, but rationality itself.

What we saw on Friday was a Prime Minister with his hands tied by dogmatic backbench MPs. But not to worry, it seems Cameron had unveiled his all powerful ‘veto’. The only problem with this is that it’s not a true veto of any sorts. Negotiations will still be ongoing, the remaining 26 EU states will still formulate an agreement and Britain will not be present to have any say in the talks.

This is catastrophic failure for Cameron who has severed any attempts to help salvage the Euro which is not only in the EU’s interest but vital in Britain’s interests. In the words of a Facebook update by my own brother:

“Tory lol. Blame the economic problems on the Euro crisis, then veto the plan to save it knowing full well that the the EU will cut you out and essentially get rid of any say you have in determining the future of Europe, and by extension, Britain“

Some may call it Bulldog spirit, I’d like to call it naively dogmatic.

Max

That Old Chestnut

by labourluke

David Cameron has a nerve. Not only has he U-turned over his pledge in opposition to hold a referendum over the UK’s terms of membership of the European Union, but today he had the temerity to force Nicolas Sarkozy to back down and accept his presence at key Eurozone talks to try to deal with the Greek debt crisis on Wednesday.

Once again, only one year into the new government, a Conservative prime minister is becoming about as stable on Europe as Edwina Currie is on her feet. We all know deep down he is a staunch Euro-sceptic, so why doesn’t he have the guts to come out and be frank with the British people, and say that he would love us to turn our backs on our continental partners, but that he also loves us to lecture and patronise them on economic policy, despite the fact that UK growth is anaemic at best, and backwards at worst, thanks to his policies.

A referendum on EU membership now would of course be absurd, but having called for one in opposition, the PM should stick to his guns and create a disunited and discredited government, and do us all a favour by breaking up the coalition and triggering a general election. You can’t have your bun and eat it, and you can’t be half in, half out, of the EU – leaving the Eurozone (or more accurately, Germany) to do all the hard work and then turning up to talks this week to act as one of the key players while facing a referendum proposal at home from your own backbenchers is hypocritical and downright embarrassing for Britain.

It was Ed Miliband, incidentally, who called on Cameron to give up his trip Down Under and attend the meeting, therefore whether or not you agree that Cameron has a right to be there, it is clear that the Labour leader is ahead of the curve on this one, as he was on phone hacking and as he was at PMQs this week.

It might sound like a cheap shot from the comforts of opposition – and we all know Blair and Brown disagreed over the Euro – however it is clear that yet again the Tories are divided over Europe. Europhile or Europhobe, this is one of the few reliable constants of the European project.

The problem with listening

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell 10 April 2011

If there’s one thing politicians need to do above all else is listen. Listen to experts, listen to other opinions irrespective of political allegiance and most importantly of all, listen to the people. Naturally then, I do welcome the pause in the break to the NHS reforms to allow Ministers to listen. Now, I’m not going to go onto the NHS reforms themselves as I’ve mentioned them enough on previous blogs. But, what I will blog about is the listening exercise itself.

After the Royal College of Nurses voted in favour in a vote of no confidence on Andrew Lansley a few days ago, the Health Minister claimed “I’m sorry if what I’m setting out to do hasn’t communicated itself…Listening to the vote this morning, if I’ve not got that message across then I apologise.”. Usually, I welcome apologises. Rather than showing a sign of ‘weakness’ they actually show a sign of humility and maturity. However, this so-called ‘failure to communicate’ is nothing less than patronising. What this is really saying is that we have failed to simplify the argument enough for you to understand, but we are still right and you are completely wrong. This don’t forget was just after 99% of delegates at the Royal College of Nurses conference deciding to vote in favour in a motion of no confidence in Lansley.

If the Health Minister is truly arrogant enough to believe that the Royal College of Nurses are too stupid enough to understand his proposals, he really has another thing coming.

Max

To AV or not to AV? That’s not the Question…

by labourluke

 

So the eagerly awaited and oh-so exciting AV referendum is now in sight, with Ed Miliband today setting out the Labour leadership’s opinion on one side, and many other Labour MPs and party members saying why they will be rejecting the proposal on the other. It does seem that the party is split down the middle – not a great position for an opposition party reassembling itself after electoral defeat. Incidentally, it is perhaps not the most shining example of ‘new politics’ or maturity when our leader refuses to unite with Nick Clegg because of his new status as Public Enemy Number One – surely there would be less cynicism in the electorate if we as an opposition party took each issue exclusively, instead of pointing the finger at the Tuition Fees Bogeyman.

The arguments for or against the Alternative Vote aside (I’m personally in the ‘Yes’ camp for want of something marginally further down the road to Proportional Representation), what strikes me the most after the disheartening advertising tactics of the ‘No’ camp (I’m sure you’ve seen the baby-in-incubator and soldier billboards) is the lack of interest amongst the wider electorate. Today I asked a friend of mine whether he had yet considered which way he would vote, and the reply was that it would make no difference to the political scene, so why should he bother? I wanted to answer his rebuttal, but found to my horror that I couldn’t. Whether or not we stick with First Past the Post or adopt AV will have little bearing on electoral outcomes on a national scale, only at constituency level (where AV would make elections far more interesting, as those who witnessed the Guild election results will testify), therefore the best we can hope for is the lesser of two evils, while those running for office continue to make vacuous or downright deceptive pledges in their election manifestos e.g. the marketisation of the NHS and tuition fees.

The real question on the ballot paper should not be ‘AV vs FPTP’, nor even the far more deomcratic ‘AV vs FPTP vs AV+ vs STV vs AMS…’, but something which reads less like a mathematical formula and more like a choice between two fundamental democratic frameworks that disillusioned voters can really get their teeth into. We need a choice over whether or not we want to overhaul the House of Lords (a process which has thus far taken a century); whether or not we want to de-throne and de-robe the monarchy; whether or not we want to reduce the stranglehold of the elites over our economy; in short, whether or not we want a new constitution. That is not to say the previous government had a gleaming record on constitutional affairs, although devolution and removal of hereditary peers were a good start. But by throwing a bone for the Lib Dem poodle in the form of a paltry referendum on AV, the Tories have got away with it again, whichever way we vote on May 5th.

The case for AV

by maxattacks

As I noticed on the BUCF blog today, they have made their position clear on the upcoming referendum, no guesses what side. Now this is the first nation-wide referendum since the 1975 referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EEC, but, BULS officially doesn’t have an opinion on the matter. Now unlike the Lib Dems Youth Society and BUCF, BULS is a far broader church in regards to electoral reform with all forms of voting being supported by individual members, FPTP, AV, AV+ and STV. However, I’m pleased to officially announce that this may well change, as on (probably) the 24th March BULS will have an internal debate and vote on the direction of support for the referendum with “Yes”, “No” and “Neither” being BULS’ final decision on the referendum (ironically using an AV system). This blog is where I’ll put the case for a “Yes” vote for BULS.

One of the great myths of AV is that it fails to produce strong and stable governments. If you look to Australia  and its AV system since 1910 there have been only two hung Parliaments, 1940 and 2010. Comparing this to the UK’s FPTP system where we have had hung Parliaments twice in 1910, 1929, February 1974 and 2010, not to forget almost hung Parliaments in 1950, 1964 and October 1974. While in Canada where they also use FPTP, there are more less permanent hung Parliaments.

The second is that people who vote for minor parties get two votes, which simply fails to acknowledge one of the simple aspects of AV. Candidates who are eliminated also have any first preference votes they received eliminated also. So no, people can’t vote twice.

And thirdly is that AV is not tried and tested unlike FPTP. For those in the “No” camp from the Tory party who fail to remember that AV (or at least a similar form of it) was used in the 2005 leadership election and if FPTP had been used, David Davis would have been elected leader of the Conservative party. AV is also used to elect people in charities, businesses, trade unions and even MPs electing their speaker. Hypocrisy is consequently laid bare for some politicians and political party members who oppose the referendum.

AV represents a change to end tactical voting, MPs appealing to a narrow section of their constituents and wasted votes. I’ll be voting “Yes” on March the 24th and May the 5th, I hope you can do the same on at least the latter.

Max

p.s. This is my 200th blog(!) making ‘Ramsay’s F Word’ the largest single category on the BULS website!

1m young people unemployed: A price worth paying?

by jakelambertonline

‘Unemployment is a price worth paying’ were the words that showed millions of Britons what the Tories really know about ordinary people. As unemployment rises again, and youth unemployment in particular is about to hit 1 million, my belief is that the people, and the Big Society, are better off when we are in work. It is especially important for young people to get a foothold in work and is certainly in the interest of both society, and HM Treasury to ensure that as many young people as possible can get work, or continue in further education.

There is a fundamental contradiction in Tory rhetoric about worklessness. At once they are carving a deep wound in our public services, and ‘cutting’ the jobs, and therefore the lives, of thousands of public sector workers. They cut the Future Jobs Fund, a vital programme which provided 18-24 year olds who had been out of work for six months with temporary employment. They abolished Education Maintenance Allowance, which provided thousands of less well off children the chance to afford further qualifications to help them compete in the labour market.  And they quashed the opportunity for 10,000 young people to go to university this year. At the same time the benefit budget is slashed and the coalition promise to get people off benefits and back into work. Where will these jobs come from? And what do those unable to find work, or unable to work at all, do when their benefits are reduced?

The Tories believe the private sector will provide these jobs, that private businesses will create well over 2 million jobs in the next few years. When the private sector created little more than 300,000 jobs between 1993 and 1999, I think everybody can see this for the nonsense it is.

But what would Labour do? The pathetic Tory response to all the criticism has been to point at the lack of concrete policy detail from Labour. They might say that this was a tactic we used while in Government. The fundamental difference is that Labour showed the Tory manifesto up for what it was. Lies, dishonesty, manipulation and branding with barely a sniff of the horror that a Tory government would really unleash. Labour were right.

This is what Labour would have done. We would have kept Education Maintenance Allowance, as Michael Gove promised before the election, thereby helping thousands of young people stay in education and encouraging aspiration. We would have given those 10,000 young people the chance to go to university, the chance to better themselves and more than pay off the cost of their education to the tax payer. And we would have protected the Future Jobs Fund, a scheme which helped 50% of young claimants move off benefits after their placement, and which the coalition advisor Frank Field called “one of the most precious things the last government was involved in, a lifeline that no amount of ‘New Deal’ rhetoric ever offered the unemployed”.

The Tories don’t understand people. They don’t care about people. Otherwise they would realise that every job cut is an assault on a family, every child that has to drop out of college is a slammed door on the future of this country, and every moment a person spends fearful of their prospects will eat away at our ‘big society’.

Jake

Stagflation?

by maxattacks

Growth stalling, inflation rising and unemployment rising, for all the Tories comparison themselves and 1979 coming in “to clean up Labour’s mess”, it seems this government more reflects the 1970s than did Labour. Now, in BULS we’re wise enough to recognise that this ‘stagflation’ is not due to the cuts (as they are still yet to take fully effect yet) but rather the ending of Darling’s economic stimulus.

Up until the growth figures came out last month I personally very much doubted that the UK would actually slip into a full blown double-dip recession, but rather ‘bump along the bottom’. Since these figures have been produced, I fear there is a very good chance now. If this continues and even if worsens when the cuts bite (which I have a feeling they will do) Labour will have the sad duty of saying “don’t say we didn’t warn you” as throughout the election we campaigned to keep investment in the economy until 2011. But, I hope for the sake of the people of Britain, that day never comes.

Max

“New”, “old”, it’s all the same to this kind of politics

by maxattacks

As you may be aware, I’ve always been a somewhat of a critic of the Coalition’s version of “new” politics, often sounding, feeling and looking like much of the “old”. Well he’s some more of it!

We’re all very aware of Cameron’s (DC) “Webcameron” (that bastion link to the plebs), well the woman who organised it along with the Tories personal photographer of DC have both been added to the Civil Service Payroll on a short term contract. Now at times of large austerity, isn’t it a tad unfair and hypocritical that the PM decides to employ quite literally, some of his mates? It’s irrelevant whether they followed Civil Service procedure and code correctly, the message is blatantly clear, austerity for you and new jobs for my chums.

It’s also the fact that when asked about this at PMQs by Miliband, DC replied ”engage in the issues”……..you’ll find this is an issue now DC of hypocracy. Yes, fair enough you’ve cut the communications budget, but it still doesn’t excuse your actions. Think DC, people can tell the difference between the “new” and “old” politics.

Max

Divided we fall

by suzannahrobinson

I admire Laurie Penny. I really do. But her latest blog on the New Statesman is counterproductive. Labour are NOT taking this lying down. Labour is the natural home for those who have been left out in the cold by the cuts, but more generally everyone who hasn’t been taken in by the talk of necessity must unite to oppose the spending review.

As the official opposition ours must be the loudest and most credible voice, the most potent ideas in creating alternatives, the bravest actions defending those who need to be defended. We must work together with the Lib Dem rebels when they emerge, with the unions, with the sensible media, the organisations facing decimation and the local councils. Because the Tories’ real mantra is not “we’re all in this together” but “Divide and Rule”.

It’s a clever strategy because stricken groups have started thinking “it’s us or them”. So the owners of art galleries might argue their case at the expense of theatres or museums. The NHS can campaign as being more essential that higher education. Those struggling to get onto the housing ladder can blame all those “benefit cheats” they’ve been hearing about.

Meanwhile we’ve been “benefitting” from a little Lib-Dem devolution in which local councils can decide exactly which services to cut from their budgets. This may lead to competition, but is more likely to lead to poor management and bankruptcy.

From division by group in society to division by area of the country the coalition has got us covered. But the protests are just beginning…

Suzy

We are NOT all in this together…..and even they know it

by maxattacks

“We are all in this together” is the famous six worded sentence announced by George Osborne at the time of the emergency budget. However, this declaration has taken yet another blow. Despite the budget already being proved to hit women, ethnic minorities and the north disproportionally more, it is now revealed that the Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s First, Deputy and Finance Ministers also concur that we are indeed not all in this together. An extract from the joint statement can be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11493001 and so proves that no, it isn’t Labour in denial over the figures, in this declaration we have the DUP, Sinn Fein, SNP and Plaid Cymru as well. And no, they aren’t doing this to gain popularity with a “tussle” with the government in London; they are doing this because what the Coalition is doing in regards to the structural deficit is in fact not in the national interest. But rather a backdrop for ideological dogma, as placed extremely well by the columnist Polly Toynbee, “Blue ideology comes well disguised at a time when all cuts, however extreme, can be disguised as necessity.”.

This is also reflected recently on the daily politics show recently where it was revealed that since David Cameron became leader in 2005 Tory party membership has dropped by a third(!) in the space of five years, yes Labour’s dropped throughout 13 years in government, but this is something quite phenomenal and while in opposition too. This is in direct contrast to Labour membership which has shot up since May 6th with what I’m proud to announce, 65 new fully fledged members of BULS at the fresher’s stall and a further 150 added to the emailing list.

Max

Osborne’s vision for the future

by suzannahrobinson

Contrary to the pre-election promises of both the Tories and the LibDems that child benefits were not to be called into question, they are now to be cut to all those individuals earning over the 40% tax rate. Obviously these middle to high earners won’t miss the hundreds or thousands of pounds they should have been entitled to as much as lower earners. This child benefits cut is therefore “not as bad as it could have been”, as opposed to those that will follow it, which I fear will be bad, worse and ugly.

While this policy compares favourably with Victorian conservatism, when the lower classes were discouraged from having children in order to leave greater space and resources for the “better quality” middle class offspring, it doesn’t show much of a departure fro recent Tory policy. It still manages to hit women hardest, especially by discriminating against single mothers. The massive loophole meanwhile, maintained for purposes of “simplicity”, allows for high earning couples to benefit, as long as each partner earns less than 44 thousand alone.

It also leaves the coalition sending the public yet another mixed message – marriage is good, raising children is bad. I’d be excited to find out the rest of Gideon’s plans for our families, if I wasn’t too busy quaking in my boots.

Suzy

153, jellyfish, Trident, dolphins and a seal

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell 11.07.2010

Firstly, apologies for the lack of blogging recently. Been away in north Wales for the past week surrounded by a seal, dolphins (yes you heard me actual dolphins in north Wales!) and what seemed to be the world’s largest gathering of jellyfish, but that unfortunately is a different story.

Moving on swiftly, Education Secretary Michael Gove promised one of the greatest revolutionary reforms to the education system of all time. This was hoped to be achieved through the expansion of the academy programme which was started by Tony Blair’s Labour government. The Academy school programme was initially targeted at underperforming areas, now I don’t know if they were successful or not, but it seemed a good….ish idea at the time.

But now Gove has began rushing through legislation to allow any school the right to become an academy, independent from the local council (even though they already hold a large degree of autonomy). Gove claimed that around a 1100 schools had already signed up to become academies within a week, however, it was recently revealed a mere 153 have done so since the coalition took office. 153! Ed Balls has accused Gove of railroading the bill given only a mere 10% of the claimed schools have applied. Personally, I’m really not well aware of the pros and cons of the academy programme, but for a coalition that is supposed to represent “new” politics, it certainly shows a lot of the “old” brand by preventing Parliament from doing their job of proper scrutiny of bills.

Moving on again, it has been revealed that there is an apparent schism between the MoD and the Treasury over who should foot the bill for the renewal of Trident. The renewal of Trident is predicted to cost around £20 billion, the MoD budget is £40 billion and there is a large budget deficit, already you can see a slight problem. Personally, I’d love to see the back of Trident, but in the name of compromise here’s an idea that will kill two birds with one stone. How about keeping Trident but not renewing until the deficit is well and truly dealt with? Britain’s nuclear defence system is still very capable of wiping out numerous major cities across the globe, a slight upgrade that would increase the range of the submarines and the blast radius of the missiles a bit would surely not go to miss if its lifespan is prolonged. Just a thought.

Max

Radicals? Really?

by maxattacks

I was surprised yesterday to see Dave have a column in the comments section of the Guardian where he claimed the Tories were the true radicals and that Labour were now the reactionaries. A more or less response was published in todays Guardian from Polly Toynbee which effectively ripped Dave to shreds-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/10/beware-radical-tories-reality-terrifying

In short this was little points of the modern Tory party:

  • Dave and Boy George are advocating cuts to public services, benefits, borrowing and letting unemployment rip
  • When this last happened child poverty shot up from 1 in every 7 children to 1 in every 3
  • “tax credits, better benefits and Sure Start lifted 500,000 out of poverty”
  • “a marriage bribe of £150 that leaves out the lowest paid married couples and deserted wives.”
  • “In the wash-up Cameron stopped a referendum on the voting system and House of Lords reform.”
  • “He blocked sex education and one-to-one tuition for slow readers.”
  • “His shadow home secretary repudiated protection for gay people, while his MEPs voted for homophobia with their weird new party.”
  • “A Financial Times survey of Tory candidates this week pointed to the scale of climate change denial in the party.”
  • “Most resist a cap on bankers’ bonuses and want less financial regulation: many come from the financial sector, others from PR and marketing, and they want the 50p top tax scrapped.”
  • “Conservativehome.com finds them rabidly Eurosceptic.”
  • “The national insurance rise they oppose costs £4 a week per employee – not, says James Caan of Dragons’ Den, a sum that deters hiring.”
  • “he will cap public officials’ pay at 20 times their lowest paid staff. Reasonable enough, but Income Data Services says only some 100 people would be affected.”
  • “Voters know that the big market destroyed the economy, while the big state rescued it.”
  • “Cameron offers tax cuts that will require double the depth of spending cuts and probably mean double the job losses.”
  • Would scrap the regional development agency
  • “ Cameron would increase unemployment: the Small Business Federation says “the jewel in the crown” of Labour’s Keynesian borrowing is the £5bn of tax postponed for 200,000 small businesses, saving many of them and their 1.4m jobs. But Cameron says all such borrowing “must stop instantly”. Unemployment is much lower than expected, but Cameron would send it back to the 1980s.”
  • “Most wicked would be Cameron’s plan to cut Sure Start back to its origins, with maybe 500 of 3,500 centres surviving in skeleton: so much for his concern about “social mobility stalling”.”
  • “School budgets, not ringfenced, would get a £1.7bn cut, the Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons, before paying for new parent-run schools.”

So evidently, he is in fact radical, but not in the way he makes himself out to be.

Max

‘Efficiency’ savings

by maxattacks

Two little things pointed out today on the BBC I found rather funny on the ensuing national insurance rise/Tory ‘efficiency’ savings.

  1. Alistair Darling today pointed out that this morning Dave admitted that his proposed ‘efficiency’ savings would not be enough to fund all his proposed tax breaks but then declined to say where the money would come from to fund the rest.
  2. And on BBC news amongst Tories promising to extend a stopping of benefits if an individual is caught committing benefit fraud 3 times to (I think) 3 years; they failed to point out that not a single person last year got caught committing benefit fraud 3 times.

A little on the side, tax breaks for married couples, while still lacking full detail (how original) the Tories will be going ahead with it. I’m sorry but you could really spend that money elsewhere on far better causes like rejuvenating deprived areas, creating a more environmentally friendly economy or simply paying off the deficit.

Max

Just a thought…

by maxattacks

With the campaign well under way, many have begun to question Dave’s consistency on cutting the deficit. Labour wishes to cut the deficit in half in 4 years, the Tories say they will do it faster. However, there is one little nagging issue for the Tories as they have made similar pledges to cut certain taxes, namely:

  • Most of the national insurance rise
  • Inheritance tax for the 3000 richest families
  • Marriage tax breaks
  • Council tax

Now frankly during decent economic periods these would actually be realistic arguments and policies, but when the UK has only just emerged from recession (I read somewhere today that the UK has in fact avoided a double-dip recession with growth at 0.4% for the first quarter) and a substantial budget deficit. So where will this money come from to fund millionaires? Yep, you guessed it, front line services with Boy George (Osborne) saying that it would cost 44,000 public sector jobs. There has been an apparent efficiency savings but even IF they managed to cough up the aforementioned amount of money it still would not be enough to cover all the tax cuts.

Max

Lest we forget 2

by maxattacks

2. Tory political oppurtunism at the worst possible time

Chris Riddell: The broken society ...

The second blog in this series I was going to save for last but as it is the biggest issue I personally have against Dave and the Tories, I thought it’d be better to get it out of the way now. The cartoon above is taken from my favourite political cartoonist, Chris Riddell, from the Observer. This was done just after the Tories 2008 party conference and virtually the start of the financial crisis were the banks were on the edge of collapse.

If you drift your memories back to Labour’s 2008 conference Gordon Brown famously stated in the midst of the banking crisis, “this is no time for a novice”. This was followed by Dave at the Tory party conference who pledged Brown a degree of support to bail-out the banks. 10 days later Dave changed tack in PMQs and attacking Brown for the likes of reckless spending and so ending the temporary political truce. Evidently Dave’s made a big issue out of this since which, but what about those 10 days?

Brown was jetting around Europe organising an international effort during those 10 days and obviously he got a tad of media coverage, which was inevitable given the circumstances.

So it can be seen that Dave did realise that this at the time was the right course of action but once again his need to appear different to the Government (and somehow a better option) prevailed. But, this is something we cannot allow the public to forget or to forgive!

Max

Lest we forget 1

by maxattacks

In response to BUC”F”s Daniel Cole’s “Lest we forget” blogs on the BUC”F” site I thought in the name of balance, point out what is so dearly wrong with the Tories and why they should not be allowed to govern. This will hopefully come in weekly instalments.

1. Tory dogma and opposition to real change

  • 1998, the Tories opposed the introduction of the minimum wage, which until previously wages such as £2 per hour were common place and legal
  • 1997-8, the Tories opposed devolution to Scotland (only to later accept it)
  • Plan to cut child tax credits
  • Plan to scrap many Sure Star centres for those on modest incomes
  • Voted against the compulsory 5 year jail sentence for carrying a gun
  • David Cameron voted against granting gay couples the right to adopt
  • Plan to scrap patient’s right to see a specialist within two weeks if your GP suspects you have cancer (which I frankly find disgusting)
  • 2002, the Tories opposed the ban on hunting Foxes with dogs (and wish to overturn the ban still)
  • David Cameron voted against the NHS Foundation Trust in 2003
  • David Cameron voted to keep Section 28 in 2003
  • The Tories are against the proposed AV system and making the House of Lords an elected chamber

 Tory dogma, once again. More to come next week and every week until the election

Max

More political opportunism

by maxattacks

BA plane

 It was revealed yesterday that the Tories have seized on strikes by British Airways and on the railways to claim Britain is facing a “spring of discontent” because of Labour. Now I’m sorry, whatever your views on the individual strikes taking place at the moment, you can hardly compare this to the ‘winter of discontent’, the circumstances are entirely different, for a start Unions are nowhere near as powerful and influential as they once were. It just seems to me that Dave’s using this opportunity to 1. Distract media attention from his Lord Ashcroft scandal, 2. Try and give Brown another blow and 3. Similarly, trying to take a swipe at the Unions because of his party’s dogmatic view. Political opportunism at its best.

Max

Neck and neck

by maxattacks

As this article shows (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7054655.ece), polling in the key marginal seats is essentially, neck and neck with occasionally Labour pulling ahead to a o.6% margin, while this is certainly not much it is far better than it was about 6 months ago.

But what has gone wrong for the Tories, throughout most of 2009 they were often polling around a 15% lead, this has been drastically slashed to around 6% now and because the FPTP system heavily favours Labour (the great irony of Tory opposition to the proposed AV system) it would mean the Tories would only just be the largest party in a hung Parliament by 3 or so seats. There are a number of reasons I believe for this decline:

Obviously, these past 2 months for Dave have not been his best, Ashcroft non-dom revelation, changing tack on spending cuts, 3 times getting the statistics wrong (crime, teenage pregnancy rates and the number of votes cast at the last election). But, I personally think there is one simple reason, they have got complacent, the Tories believe they will be able to just waltz into No. 10 and in doing so have not made the policies bomb-proof (so to speak) for when the spotlight was turned upon them. Back in 1997, New Labour feared Major and the government and so they ran a highly tight campaign, not leaving room for error. This is the Tory’s greatest failure, underestimating Labour.

Max

3rd time lucky?…maybe not

by maxattacks

Well frankly, the last month and a half have been a bit of a sham for the Tories. Twice in recent weeks they have come out with false statistics (the first being the level of violent crime and the second being the number of votes at the last general election and so why we shouldn’t switch to AV-http://bulsonline.org/2010/02/09/deja-vu/). While the crime figures have some context due to the changing of the system in 2002 but this-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8515798.stm is a tad over the top. The 10 poorest areas of the country have 54% of 18 year old girls pregnant or have had a baby? Nope, somewhat like 5.4% (down on 1998 at 6%), somewhat missed a decimal place there in an attempted to bash the “broken” Britain! Even the Liberal Democrats’ chief of staff, Danny Alexander, saying: “The Tories seem to think that half our teenagers are pregnant, our cities are like The Wire and that people will get married for a few extra quid.”

Well chosen words

Max

The twisting of the evidence

by maxattacks

Like most people at BULS, up until the UK emerged from recession I was beginning to find it rather boring of Dave and Osborne attacking the government for lagging behind in recession while the “world left us behind”. But, this has been showed by recent figures that this well is not going to happen just yet.  Europe’s biggest economy, Germany failed to grow at all in the last quarter of 2009 while other countries such as Spain, Italy (who’s also apart of the G20) and Greece are still in recession. This shows that no Dave, we weren’t being left behind, and drastic cuts will plunge UK and then potentially parts of Europe back into recession also.

Mini-rant over

Max

I thought the Tories were supposed to be good at PR

by maxattacks

A new poster was revealed yesterday (I think) by the Conservative headquatres. While Cameron wisely after the fiasco of his last poster stood out this time the new poster does reveal a new level of hypocracy.

Personally, I like the fact that they skimmed over their own inheritance tax cuts. Here’s two improved posters.

RIP Tory Marketing Strategy 2009-10

Come on Dave, Labour hasn’t even started their campaign yet, pull yourself together!

Max

Deja vu

by maxattacks

Well, I recently found this on the Tories main website with good ol’ Eric Pickles talking about Tory opposition to the proposed AV system (which while he’s denying plurality to the British people he indeed does have the right to oppose), but when it gets to 0.50 in, quite a blatant factual flaw arises (I wonder if he got the statistics from Chris Grayling).

Now, there is blatant proof other wise from this source (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/RP05-033.pdf) if there’s any doubt, just go to page 8 which even though doesn’t have the exact number of votes, the percentage itself is pretty clear. Keep the statistics right Eric!

Max

No price on a life

by maxattacks

Gordon Brown today pledged to offer free, one-to-one home care by specialist nurses to those suffering from Cancer. This in turn would save £2.5 billion a year by reducing hospital admissions. However, some people seem to not get the message, Andrew Lansley the Shadow health secretary said that “Gordon Brown needs to make clear to patients which other schemes he plans to cut” and claims that this will in fact cost £100m. I’m sorry, but so much for “I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS” and also, I personally think that if it leaves £100 million more in debt but saves lives (which it will) it is money well spent.

Max

“Iron Lady” to “Flip-flop” Dave…Oh dear, oh dear

by maxattacks

It was announced on the 15th January, George Osborne was telling us that the Tories would bring in an emergency budget within 50 days of taking office. Now this was all very fine (except for of course, it is the wrong measure to take), but Dave himself today said that a Conservative government would not make “swingeing cuts” to public spending during its first year.

Now, in all due fairness, credit has to be given to Dave, he’s finally beginning to see sense, but this is a far flung shot from the Tory’s “Glory Days” under Maggie herself with the famous, “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning”. Pity for Cameron he somewhat fails to live up to her.

Max

‘Broken Society’ an excuse to batter Britain.

by maxattacks
I do not like to use isolated incidents for point scoring. So I think David Cameron’s use of the Doncaster killings is no better than populist electioneering. Tony Blair used the Bulger killings in a similar way. Not to say that these killings are not newsworthy. Truly they are horrific. But the reason that they are newsworthy must surely be because they are so shocking? If our society was broken, to the extent that David Cameron says, why would this sort of incident not occur more often. But if we take the Bulger killing in Liverpool and this latest one in Doncaster, we can see that the killings took place in similar areas. Liverpool, in 1993, was a wreckage of a place slowly struggling out of the depressing circumstances of the 1980s when its main industries were closed, communities uprooted and many families livelihoods threatened. Type into google ‘the Toxteth riots’ for an indication of how bad it was. In 1993 then, Liverpool was a down and out place, not the resurgent and confident city that it has began to be rebuilt into in recent years. Doncaster similarly is an area that had its main industry (mining) torn out from under it in the 1980s. It has had similar problems with unemployment, uprooted communities and crime. Hence we see the parallels between the two places.
Clearly there are problems when crimes such as the Bulger and Doncaster killings take place. As I said, I think it is unfair for anyone, Labour or Conservative, to use one crime for political purposes. Just as I think attributing such crimes to a “broken society” as Mr Cameron does, when these killings have taken place in communities that have been broken by a Conservative government, which David Cameron largely intends on reciprocating, and whose leader Mrs Thatcher stated “There is no such thing as society.” The angry public reaction to these killings, suggests, in my view, that while there is certainly evidence of problems within our society, it is very much in existence and is still far from broken.
 
Sean Woodcock, BULS Member

Ironic…

by maxattacks

In the wake of Obama proposing new curbs on banks, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Boy) George Osbourne has quickly followed suit. Now this is all very…very…..nice, correct me if I’m wrong though, but around about 3 years ago didn’t (Boy) George call for greater deregulation? He also recently stated that “This is a welcome move by President Obama that accords very much with our thinking,”….well, despite that Obama supported helping the economy when it was in dire trouble, but surprisingly enough, he didn’t. It seems…just seems that (Boy) George is trying to cuddle up to “Mr President” (don’t believe me, check the BUC”F”s blog on the “special relationship” between Britain and America at the moment)…..just a thought.

Max

A year for change?…the change has been here for 13 years Dave

by maxattacks

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for over a year you will have somewhat have guessed that the Tories logo has been “Year for Change”, now in all due fairness, very original idea there Dave, there hasn’t been any other politicians that have used “Change” as part of their campaign, especially not across the Atlantic.

In response though, Lord Mandelson at a speech to the Fabian Society coined something a slogan in return ““Change for good, change with Labour”, well personally I think could be interpreted wrong, but either way, it shows where the real change is. This can be told by the fact that well, the Conservative and Unionist Party, unlike Labour in the mid and late 1980s, had no radical internal struggle between the old and rising new factions from within the party. All it seems that Dave’s done is slap new logo on (which frankly looks like it was drawn by a 7 year old), hug a few hoodies and ironically branded a totally contradictory slogan.

Mini rant over!

Max

Response to the “Blair rich project”

by maxattacks

Recently the BUC”F” had a blog published on their website called the “Blair rich project” (http://bucf.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/the-blair-rich-project/) somehow making Blair’s career success (£12 million earned after 2007) after resigning as PM a political issue.

Now yes he’s done well for himself, but lest you forget that according to the Sunday Times Rich List, David and Samantha Cameron’s combined family wealth is more than £30 million. Doesn’t that say something against “compassionate” Dave? Osborne also has a similar “excess” of money with many Tory MPs holding second jobs on the side at some point in their political careers.

The post then went onto say that:

“Presiding over an unprecedented taxing, borrowing and spending binge which has achieved paltry improvements to the public services and left the country in the worst position of almost any industrialised nation to face the global economic downturn”…Correction, the UK prior to the financial crisis had the second lowest level of borrowing in the G7, most independent financial organisations (CBI and IMF) supported the fiscal stimulus which without would have seen the banks collapse and unemployment skyrocket and even now the UK is under the EU average for proportional budget deficit.

“Taking us to war on a lie – something which he has now all but admitted”….Whether or not it was “a lie” it was “a lie” the Tories supported and still do

“Allowing an unprecedented increase in immigration “swamping” communities and leading to a further erosion of British identity”….Sound like anyone in particular?

“Fostering the breakdown of society, family and marriage”….Yet we fail to hear a coherent policy on marriage tax breaks which also is highly discriminative against same sex civil-partners

“Bringing parliament and politics in to total and utter disrepute by presiding over the worst scandal to grip the Commons in living memory in the form of parliamentary expenses”….Funny, didn’t the Tories claim for outrageous expenses as well?

Rant over now, lol!

Max

No thanks Dave…

by maxattacks

As you probably will have heard, the Tories have recently “promised” tax breaks for married couples. Obviously this is supposed to be an incentive for people to marry and stay married, but, correct me if I’m wrong, don’t you marry someone because you love them? Another shortfalling (not including whether or not these plans are going to be proposed or not) is that it discriminates quite explicitly against couples in same-sex civil partnerships and not to mention unmarried couples who well, might not like the idea of marriage.

But this also confuses me, doesn’t Cameron whant to rapidly cut the deficit rather than promise more tax cuts?

There’s a better way to this than tax breaks Dave!

Max

Good ol’ Nick

by maxattacks

Nick Clegg

 

Recent talks of what the Lib Dems would do in the event of a hung Parliament have got me thinking, what would we allow the Lib Dems in the event of a minority Labour Government following the general election next spring? Cetainly there will be greater and faster constitutional reform (as the Tories would probably not grant that part) and Nick Clegg and Vince Cable (at least) will be given Cabinet positions. But what else? Cameron’s claims that the two parties are more similar than ever is obviously utter rubbish really, I don’t mind the Lib Dems too much and cetainly think we are closer to them ideologically than the Tories.

So, what else do you think would they want in return for their support?

Max

So it begins….well for some

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell 03.01.10

Within a few days I know at least the Conservatives will be firing up their campaign for the 2010 election. There will be soon a vast forray of PR and soundbites from the blue camp, nothing new there. But we need to remember, as always, that this is a mask, despite pledges of NHS cash boost for most deprived areas and a “War Cabinet” (which pointed out by the Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw, would be rather pointless as Ministers often inform their shadows of events), there is always the same Tory party as also argued by  Liberal Democrat frontbencher Danny Alexander who said Mr Cameron “needs to be honest with people about his real priorities rather than simply parroting lines from spin doctors”.

How do we know this? Yes, there’s all the contradictory policies like the cartoon shows, but there is also the clear fact that, there never was any internal party upheval when “change” was implemented to the Conservative and Unionist Party, no internal struggles between the old and new factions. So take heed of this, only constant reminders can help the British public see though the smokescreen of PR.

Max

Correct me if I’m wrong…

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell

For once in David Cameron’s leadership of the Conservative and Unionist Party, it seems for once (well, for the time being anyway) that he hasn’t put on his favourite pair of flip-flops, as despite the majority of the polls showing a substantial reduction in the Tory lead (down 4 points on last month in an ICM poll in the Guardian) it seems that with a recent interview Cameron said that in the last 3 general elections “We did a core strategy for 12 years…It is a disaster” and that he will freeze pay for 80% of public sector pay and abolish tax credits for families earning over £50,000. Now correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t you regard that a little bit of a “core strategy”?

Max

Bankers bonus tax

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell comment cartoon 12.12.09

Recently it has been revealed that London Mayor, Boris Johnson, argued that the recent introduction of a 50% tax on all Bank bonuses over (I think) £20,000 would ”super-penalise” the city. However, today the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, George Osbourne, said “I’m not going to oppose it; I’m going to see whether it works in practice and we’ll judge it by its results.” and then said, Boris “is not opposed to this windfall tax, actually, as far as I understand it,”. Doesn’t this show a little lack of coherace from two of the most prominent figures of the Conservative Party? Also, then Osbourne (or boy george, watever take your fancy) then went onto say, “If people would have taken my advice, we would be in a better place than we are today,”, which is coming from someone who prior to last year’s financial crisis was saying the government was too regulatory on the banks, despite the recession being caused by too little regulation and over-speculation.

Max

The Pre-Budget Report

by maxattacks

Ok I got back earlier than I thought I would, so here are a few of the main provisions of the Pre-Budget Report:

  1. Budget deficit to be halved by 2013
  2. One-off 50% tax on bank bonuses of more than £25,000
  3. Inheritance tax to be frozen at £325,000 until 2011
  4. All national insurance rates to rise by 0.5% from April 2011
  5. Increase in corporation tax for small businesses to be deferred
  6. Under-24s to be guaranteed work or training after six months out of work
  7. Basic state pension will rise by 2.5% in April 2010
  8. Child and disability benefit to rise by 1.5% in 2010
  9. £160m investment in low-carbon and renewable projects
  10. £200m extra investment for Warm Front insulation scheme, helping 65,000 households
  11. Boiler scrappage scheme for 125,000 households
  12. Free school meals to an extra 500,000 low income families
  13. Growth of 1%-1.5% expected in 2010 and 3.5% in 2011 and 2012

Note an air of social justice and equality rather than in the case of 3. raising to £1million to help the top 2% of families. I know who I’m voting for.

And from the BBC website, Osbourne said ”the Tories would take action to reduce the deficit while protecting the poorest in society.”…the irony

Max

Happy(?) Anniversary

by maxattacks

It is now exactly 4 years to do the day in which David Cameron was elected the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. So what in that 4 year period has been his best “achievement”? Inheritance Tax cuts for the top 2% of families? A “cast iron gaurantee” on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Opposition to the fiscal stimulus package introduced in the wake of the financial crisis of autumn 2008, despite initially supporting it for a total of 10 days (and despite every other major western economic country following suit to Labour’s policies)?

Hang on?…Did they just contradict themselves..again?

by maxattacks

Well I dunno about everyone else, but there has been a many a facebook update from BUC”F” members on the subject of the SNP’s attempts at Scottish independance being along the lines of “Remember Salmond, we are stronger together than apart”..now for the majority of BUC”F” members, they are in fact Eurosceptic…do you think that is a little bit of a contradiction…again? Pro-unity at home but self-interest abroad