Much has been made of the long overdue plan to update the laws of succession, notably regarding sex and religion (or rather the religion of a consort)
'It's wonderful', they cry in this age of sexual equality - only isn't this egalitarianism rather shallow? Sure, sexism is bad, but the moment you start questioning why it needs to be a man over a woman, won't you start questioning why it's the first born
...or why from a particular womb?
They preach fairness but the whole concept of hereditary entitlement is inherently unfair - it is just as arbitrary as male precedence, so surely once we question one thing, shouldn't we be questioning the rest?
The Catholic thing was in fact probably the least arbitrary feature, it served a practical and strategic purpose until the start of the last century, whereas proper hereditary succession was thrown out the window when parliament invited foreign monarchs because the true heirs were deemed unsuitable - yet we lose one not the other, when both concepts are seriously out of step with society
I find this very odd, anyone with half a brain should see the logical steps here - that's why the monarchists should be opposing it, if their rationale is to keep one big anachronism they shouldn't let the peripheral anachronisms be altered, likewise any reformer should be pushing for real equality - otherwise they're just shallow and trendy twits
Just saying..
(There's also a little noticed rule about the monarch's permission that George III made up for his brothers, but that's hardly worth mentioning)
Showing posts with label Tories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tories. Show all posts
31 October 2011
11 April 2011
Maybe I will vote 'yes' after all
Another No to AV campaign video, and now it's just getting silly
To be honest this sort of bullshit where they make up all sorts of nonsense to scare people is starting to wind me up
Firstly Alan B'stard makes a comeback in a ridiculously unrealistic political scenario - fairly clearly aimed at your average man in the street who doesn't do politics, but I was struck by the fact that the result was exactly the same as what we have now - a party who tear up their manifesto and do a deal with the Lib Dems to form government and have no accountability
...in what way is that different to what we have? They just tacked on 'because of AV', when FPTP has given us exactly the same situation
Then they end with the frankly offensive statement 'one person, one vote' - one of the main beefs of reformers like me is that we do not currently have 'one person, one vote' - more than half of voters cannot win and therefore do not even have a chance of being heard, for FPTP campaigners to somehow claim it is one person and one vote is downright lying (of course it technically is, and the film deliberately obscured the lines between voting for a government and a single MP)
What they really want is 'one Tory/Labour voting person, one vote...in a safe seat'
Anyway - Yes to AV! Out of spite
To be honest this sort of bullshit where they make up all sorts of nonsense to scare people is starting to wind me up
Firstly Alan B'stard makes a comeback in a ridiculously unrealistic political scenario - fairly clearly aimed at your average man in the street who doesn't do politics, but I was struck by the fact that the result was exactly the same as what we have now - a party who tear up their manifesto and do a deal with the Lib Dems to form government and have no accountability
...in what way is that different to what we have? They just tacked on 'because of AV', when FPTP has given us exactly the same situation
Then they end with the frankly offensive statement 'one person, one vote' - one of the main beefs of reformers like me is that we do not currently have 'one person, one vote' - more than half of voters cannot win and therefore do not even have a chance of being heard, for FPTP campaigners to somehow claim it is one person and one vote is downright lying (of course it technically is, and the film deliberately obscured the lines between voting for a government and a single MP)
What they really want is 'one Tory/Labour voting person, one vote...in a safe seat'
Anyway - Yes to AV! Out of spite
22 October 2010
On Yer Bike
What is so wrong with the concept of 'on yer bike' (Tebbitt never actually said it)
The broad idea is that if there isn't work where you live, go and look for it - this has in IDS' terms become related to fairly simple commuting to nearby towns, not even upping sticks
Jeremy Vine is currently talking about Welsh people from Swansea or the famously deprived Methyr Tydfil getting, shock horror, a 50 minute bus ride to Cardiff
The irony strikes me that the poor must have jobs on their doorsteps, but no one bats an eyelid that the 'wealthy' in the south east have to sit on the M25 for an hour or catch a 7.05 train to London
I happen to live by the busiest commuter line in the country (Cambridge-London), it carries thousands every morning into King's Cross and Liverpool St, and if you've ever been on one of these trains you would know that you will not get a seat 9 times out of 10 - people in business suits crammed in reading their iphones while standing, some sit on the floor in their suits - it is not a pleasant experience
I admit the pay accommodates this, we're not talking min wage, but most of these people are not paid masses (check the slightly later trains for them), and train fares are thousands a year, so much that my commuter friends have loans for them - these people are getting on their bikes every day, and my other friends have either moved into London, or commute to nearby big towns - none work where they live or grew up, and nor do they all work in offices being paid well (some do), I refuse to be a commuter and in turn am paid worse - every day workers are expected to get on their metaphorical bikes, but the unemployed can't?
Job Centres even pay for travel to interviews this sort of distance - so why are they so loathe to move? They say low wages don't make up for the transport (a bus ride is probably an hour's pay of each day at most), but welcome to the real world - thousands of pounds a year to commute either by train or car will see you lose masses of your salary, let alone taxation, people don't want to pay this - but they have to!
Most people do not think it is right to claim benefit and do not weigh their benefits against employment - if I could claim more on benefit than my salary I would still work, because I had a job and that's my money, benefits are not another form of income
And what is so wrong with moving? As I've said, I have friends who moved to London for fairly humble work, I even used to have a teacher from Methyr who railed against those who refused to leave, I know fairly well to do people who became very hard up - they moved, in a period of less than five years, down to Dorset, then to Sussex and finally to Suffolk chasing whatever jobs they could find - Polish immigrants are, fairly obviously, moving from their homes in search of work, we were doing it centuries ago, as the poor rural workers headed to the cities for work, and we still do - there is simply a small group who refuse to accept this notion (I admit that local government may hinder this, and it should be reformed)
This issue about it being more profitable to not work should not even come about - it's wrong, and clearly people don't appreciate that, having grown up on it probably, so the government should cut benefit to non-workers - it should always be better to work than sit on your arse, people seem to forget that those who work are putting themselves through hardship, paying for everything themselves, waking up at 7am, maybe getting home after 6pm after spending the whole day at a desk, or whatever, and they have to pay for everything themselves, probably about a fifth of their earnings on getting there in the first place!
Meanwhile people who do nothing to get their own money whinge when it is cut - not realising that they get to stay at home all day, which workers would love to be able to do - see the kids more, do the housework, cook more etc
I don't mind state support - but it is not a lifestyle choice, so I think it is right that the government want to cap benefits, and I also agree with 'on yer bike' - we all bloody do it! Do not provide free houses to non-workers, do not give them unlimited pay cheques, but limit it to a year or two and then on reduce it to a very basic level - use the savings made for other incentives, subsidise transport, subsidise rent and pay benefits to those on minimum wage, who truly are the ones suffering - do not pay people to stay unemployed, who say it costs more to work!
*This was meant to be a short and concise rant...oops
The broad idea is that if there isn't work where you live, go and look for it - this has in IDS' terms become related to fairly simple commuting to nearby towns, not even upping sticks
Jeremy Vine is currently talking about Welsh people from Swansea or the famously deprived Methyr Tydfil getting, shock horror, a 50 minute bus ride to Cardiff
The irony strikes me that the poor must have jobs on their doorsteps, but no one bats an eyelid that the 'wealthy' in the south east have to sit on the M25 for an hour or catch a 7.05 train to London
I happen to live by the busiest commuter line in the country (Cambridge-London), it carries thousands every morning into King's Cross and Liverpool St, and if you've ever been on one of these trains you would know that you will not get a seat 9 times out of 10 - people in business suits crammed in reading their iphones while standing, some sit on the floor in their suits - it is not a pleasant experience
I admit the pay accommodates this, we're not talking min wage, but most of these people are not paid masses (check the slightly later trains for them), and train fares are thousands a year, so much that my commuter friends have loans for them - these people are getting on their bikes every day, and my other friends have either moved into London, or commute to nearby big towns - none work where they live or grew up, and nor do they all work in offices being paid well (some do), I refuse to be a commuter and in turn am paid worse - every day workers are expected to get on their metaphorical bikes, but the unemployed can't?
Job Centres even pay for travel to interviews this sort of distance - so why are they so loathe to move? They say low wages don't make up for the transport (a bus ride is probably an hour's pay of each day at most), but welcome to the real world - thousands of pounds a year to commute either by train or car will see you lose masses of your salary, let alone taxation, people don't want to pay this - but they have to!
Most people do not think it is right to claim benefit and do not weigh their benefits against employment - if I could claim more on benefit than my salary I would still work, because I had a job and that's my money, benefits are not another form of income
And what is so wrong with moving? As I've said, I have friends who moved to London for fairly humble work, I even used to have a teacher from Methyr who railed against those who refused to leave, I know fairly well to do people who became very hard up - they moved, in a period of less than five years, down to Dorset, then to Sussex and finally to Suffolk chasing whatever jobs they could find - Polish immigrants are, fairly obviously, moving from their homes in search of work, we were doing it centuries ago, as the poor rural workers headed to the cities for work, and we still do - there is simply a small group who refuse to accept this notion (I admit that local government may hinder this, and it should be reformed)
This issue about it being more profitable to not work should not even come about - it's wrong, and clearly people don't appreciate that, having grown up on it probably, so the government should cut benefit to non-workers - it should always be better to work than sit on your arse, people seem to forget that those who work are putting themselves through hardship, paying for everything themselves, waking up at 7am, maybe getting home after 6pm after spending the whole day at a desk, or whatever, and they have to pay for everything themselves, probably about a fifth of their earnings on getting there in the first place!
Meanwhile people who do nothing to get their own money whinge when it is cut - not realising that they get to stay at home all day, which workers would love to be able to do - see the kids more, do the housework, cook more etc
I don't mind state support - but it is not a lifestyle choice, so I think it is right that the government want to cap benefits, and I also agree with 'on yer bike' - we all bloody do it! Do not provide free houses to non-workers, do not give them unlimited pay cheques, but limit it to a year or two and then on reduce it to a very basic level - use the savings made for other incentives, subsidise transport, subsidise rent and pay benefits to those on minimum wage, who truly are the ones suffering - do not pay people to stay unemployed, who say it costs more to work!
*This was meant to be a short and concise rant...oops
19 October 2010
Best BBC Graph Ever
This is the 'savage' spending cuts in relative terms
As reported on the BBC ten o'clock news, by Stephanie Flanders
This is the truth, note the rise into a almost vertical incline after 2000, when Labour abandoned the previous Tory government's spending model and pumped huge amounts into the public sector, much of it the NHS
Does that look sustainable to you? Does it even look sensible? No - every post-war government, even the two Labour ones, has had to keep the constant rise in spending in line with economic growth - as shown by the broad trend, that rule was absolutely demolished in the past decade - to claw spending back to 2006/07 levels is moderate, even tame
I've known this for a long time, as these figures have been all over the right-wing blogosphere, I am no economist but people like Guido, the Taxpayers Alliance and others have all made the point that these are barely spending cuts, but reigning in the rise in spending, depending on inflation
This is the first time I've seen this graphic interpretation on any major broadcaster, and frankly it's about time - we can talk about the impact of the cuts, but this is the actual reason for them, and it really helps to show why we need them, and this rather dents the anti-BBC lot's case
The real issue is - why is essentially a clawing back of roughly 4% to the expenditure level of three years ago so bloody destructive? We're talking about a snip of money that simply wasn't there four years ago, and yet we're losing 25,000 MoD staff and god knows how many more public sector workers*
Not that I'm against reigning in the public sector, but it seems rather a lot for what is a relatively small cut - I know some is about future spending commitments, and it's over five years, but I can't help feeling it's a bit... inefficient, and it's the waste that's most important to cut, and I also can't help thinking that ring-fencing the NHS was a costly political manoeuvre
*though I may be underestimating the rise in the public sector workforce
This is the truth, note the rise into a almost vertical incline after 2000, when Labour abandoned the previous Tory government's spending model and pumped huge amounts into the public sector, much of it the NHS
Does that look sustainable to you? Does it even look sensible? No - every post-war government, even the two Labour ones, has had to keep the constant rise in spending in line with economic growth - as shown by the broad trend, that rule was absolutely demolished in the past decade - to claw spending back to 2006/07 levels is moderate, even tame
I've known this for a long time, as these figures have been all over the right-wing blogosphere, I am no economist but people like Guido, the Taxpayers Alliance and others have all made the point that these are barely spending cuts, but reigning in the rise in spending, depending on inflation
This is the first time I've seen this graphic interpretation on any major broadcaster, and frankly it's about time - we can talk about the impact of the cuts, but this is the actual reason for them, and it really helps to show why we need them, and this rather dents the anti-BBC lot's case
The real issue is - why is essentially a clawing back of roughly 4% to the expenditure level of three years ago so bloody destructive? We're talking about a snip of money that simply wasn't there four years ago, and yet we're losing 25,000 MoD staff and god knows how many more public sector workers*
Not that I'm against reigning in the public sector, but it seems rather a lot for what is a relatively small cut - I know some is about future spending commitments, and it's over five years, but I can't help feeling it's a bit... inefficient, and it's the waste that's most important to cut, and I also can't help thinking that ring-fencing the NHS was a costly political manoeuvre
*though I may be underestimating the rise in the public sector workforce
11 October 2010
What Cuts?
I keep seeing (sob) stories on the news, and newsnight, various other articles about how this and that will suffer from 'cuts'
Exactly what cuts are these? As far as I'm aware, the spending review is still days away, people are assuming everything is going to lose funding, including healthcare (Newsnight participant), and it's all the good stuff the police do, 'how I need my benefits' yadda yadda
All very well - but I don't see why good programmes need to be cut - the government spending plan will not even be cutting expenditure, as highlighted by Guido, among others, merely reduce the rise in spending to nearly zero with inflation adjusted (even Thatcher only 'cut' in real term spending in one year) and for years we have been going on about waste and inefficiency - as soon as they announce what is effectively a balancing of the books, all spending is good!
Fact is, we have debt, we pay interest on that debt, it is good to not have to use our tax revenue to pay said interest - therefore we are either spending too much, or need to raise more
We need to decide in a grown-up way what we can do without - unfortunately everyone seems to have jumped the gun and believes the welfare state will no longer exist in a few years
This is despite the fact most cuts will come from general budgets - it is up to the budget holders, often the local government, government agency or whatever bureaucratic authority it is, to decide what to spend, what is necessary and what is not - this is common sense for any institution, whether private or public, or indeed personal, when available money shrinks
Cutting everything across the board, and for political gain, is not - it'll just make the situation worse, and for what it's worth the reverse, which is 'ring-fencing' the bloated NHS, which everyone thinks is wasteful, but wants, was a weak, if politically necessary, move
Nobody, except the media and Labour are saying all this will happen...
Exactly what cuts are these? As far as I'm aware, the spending review is still days away, people are assuming everything is going to lose funding, including healthcare (Newsnight participant), and it's all the good stuff the police do, 'how I need my benefits' yadda yadda
All very well - but I don't see why good programmes need to be cut - the government spending plan will not even be cutting expenditure, as highlighted by Guido, among others, merely reduce the rise in spending to nearly zero with inflation adjusted (even Thatcher only 'cut' in real term spending in one year) and for years we have been going on about waste and inefficiency - as soon as they announce what is effectively a balancing of the books, all spending is good!
Fact is, we have debt, we pay interest on that debt, it is good to not have to use our tax revenue to pay said interest - therefore we are either spending too much, or need to raise more
We need to decide in a grown-up way what we can do without - unfortunately everyone seems to have jumped the gun and believes the welfare state will no longer exist in a few years
This is despite the fact most cuts will come from general budgets - it is up to the budget holders, often the local government, government agency or whatever bureaucratic authority it is, to decide what to spend, what is necessary and what is not - this is common sense for any institution, whether private or public, or indeed personal, when available money shrinks
Cutting everything across the board, and for political gain, is not - it'll just make the situation worse, and for what it's worth the reverse, which is 'ring-fencing' the bloated NHS, which everyone thinks is wasteful, but wants, was a weak, if politically necessary, move
Nobody, except the media and Labour are saying all this will happen...
05 October 2010
83%
Anyone would think the media types somewhat over-represent those top rate tax payers...
Yougov have produced a poll that shows 83% are in favour of this cut (sorry no reliable link)
Roughly 15% pay higher rate tax...
Yet the journalists harp on about it, when any chump could tell you the whingers are actually very few in number, even if they are very vocal on the BBC forums
Clearly, they're overpaying the journalists
I think we all agree it unfair on some level, but it's hard to have sympathy for people who earn enough to have the choice to not work and the unfairness is mostly theoretical - affecting I would bet, a few thousand lucky sods
I've seen the gripes about how these people 'can't afford it' - yes, you can, love, because I've been there and grew up on rather a lot less, and the rest of us do not even have the choice - they can whinge about two earners but the whole point is those two earners need to work, therefore you are better off in the first place!
I'm not saying you're 'rich' - but you're blind to the fact that you have the luxury of choice, which the vast majority of us don't, so welcome to our world!
They are whingeing about a benefit cut to the wealthiest earners in society, while benefits to the poorest (deserving or not) are being cut at the same time - the fact is you cannot cut an expenditure without it hurting someone
I think I've boiled it down to a simple point:
We don't 'need' a universal child benefit, we don't have a sole breadwinner model anymore and the system is not designed to prop up the housewife model (nor does it) - it's a token from a bygone age, the problem people have is that they are losing money - which we all hate, but if you never have it, you can't miss it - a BBC documentary on high earners pointed out that wealthy GPs were living hand to mouth because of their mortgages, cars etc - when we have it, we spend it
doesn't mean we 'need' it
Yougov have produced a poll that shows 83% are in favour of this cut (sorry no reliable link)
Roughly 15% pay higher rate tax...
Yet the journalists harp on about it, when any chump could tell you the whingers are actually very few in number, even if they are very vocal on the BBC forums
Clearly, they're overpaying the journalists
I think we all agree it unfair on some level, but it's hard to have sympathy for people who earn enough to have the choice to not work and the unfairness is mostly theoretical - affecting I would bet, a few thousand lucky sods
I've seen the gripes about how these people 'can't afford it' - yes, you can, love, because I've been there and grew up on rather a lot less, and the rest of us do not even have the choice - they can whinge about two earners but the whole point is those two earners need to work, therefore you are better off in the first place!
I'm not saying you're 'rich' - but you're blind to the fact that you have the luxury of choice, which the vast majority of us don't, so welcome to our world!
They are whingeing about a benefit cut to the wealthiest earners in society, while benefits to the poorest (deserving or not) are being cut at the same time - the fact is you cannot cut an expenditure without it hurting someone
I think I've boiled it down to a simple point:
We don't 'need' a universal child benefit, we don't have a sole breadwinner model anymore and the system is not designed to prop up the housewife model (nor does it) - it's a token from a bygone age, the problem people have is that they are losing money - which we all hate, but if you never have it, you can't miss it - a BBC documentary on high earners pointed out that wealthy GPs were living hand to mouth because of their mortgages, cars etc - when we have it, we spend it
doesn't mean we 'need' it
Are you really that pissed off?
The media are having great fun with this child benefit cut
The lefties naturally oppose any cut (despite it being against high earners...) and the Mail who usually rail against benefits, despise the cutting of middle-class benefits - so nobody's happy
But I have to ask - is it really that bad?
The Tories, and many supporters, will admit it's ridiculous to pay the wealthiest people (e.g. David Cameron, who can claim £2,500 if he chooses) benefits - and I point to the decent tax breaks in their stead being a far more sensible option than taxing and repaying the middle classes
So why is twenty quid a week so important? Everyone, including families (particularly at the bottom), will have gained hundreds in tax breaks by 2013, so what if we cut off the top 15% from a fairly minor benefit?
We have a huge welfare bill, and a small chop from those who can probably afford it, seems very reasonable to me
There are some notable problems, I admit - the main one being that a family can earn 35 grand twice and keep it, while a sole earner on 50 cannot, thus penalising stay-at-home-mother families
However, how many are being hit by this 'rough justice' as Philip Hammond put it? As he pointed out - the median earnings for a couple both under 44 grand is only 46, while sole earners were in the seventies
In short, just how many people are at the bottom end of this scale - i.e. sole income families earning around 45k? The stats show that the very few people who do live off one wage these days need a little bit more than the higher rate threshold anyway - you will always find people who do exceedingly well from a situation, and those who get caught out quite badly - that's the Mail's job
But as long as it remains a few this is a rather painless cut to the vast majority of people, and is highly unlikely to put anyone into poverty, if it does, I apologise, but I'll take the risk
I agree it's in principle unfair, and a few will benefit to the detriment of others - but the fact is the PAYE system is much, much easier to base this on than means testing all claimants, and therefore more cost-effective - I challenge you to work out a simple way of cutting an unnecessary benefit while keeping it totally fair
I agree it is against traditional Tory principles, they support stay at home mothers, but that's their problem, not mine, I think that's a more philosophical debate for them, for the rest of us however, it will have a tiny impact on families who can largely afford it
Likewise, the 'universality' line they used in the election is going to come back and bite them, because it is a break - they can claim they didn't win the election but who seriously believes this one was caused by the Liberals? They should be cutting extravagant benefits anyway - get some balls, and don't lie in your manifesto (it's not technically lying if you don't win...)
It's a few grand (tops), to those who are paying higher rate tax - I bloody wish I was paying higher rate tax...
Also, I must take issue with the man in the Newsnight crowd who claimed it went against aspirational values - i.e. people wouldn't aspire to earn 44k because they might lose a benefit of 20 quid a week
Does he not understand maths? If they are aspirational, all they have to aspire to is 47k before they wipe out the perceived loss (dependent on number of kids) and they are back in 'aspiring' territory - do people just get to the threshold and sit there forever more?
With the increase in the tax threshold and allowances we are getting a good deal for losing a bit at the top end - it's unlikely people are going to be worse off in general when you look at the overall picture of taxation, so I think this is a perfectly fair, and rational, decision
In my mind (though I doubt anyone else's), surely the Lib Dems are doing well here - without them we wouldn't have got the big increases in the allowance, and with them this wouldn't have been cut - I doubt anyone will note that they're the ones with the popular policies, however
Also this 'no families on more than 26k of benefits' needs some fleshing out - is that 'every' benefit? And how do you keep tabs on all the various payments made?
I agree it needs doing (and frankly 26k is too high), but it's going to be bloody difficult when you consider housing costs in certain areas (as Nick Robinson points out)
But this is way more fun than the sodding Labour soap opera
Update: The BBC are using 'human' stories from the people to point out the flaws (which are obvious)
'Trisha' from Hertfordshire claimed it was the only income she gets - right, besides the 44k+ that you get from your husband/partner?
Let's break that down - you are 'earning' £20 or £34 (average number of kids is two) a week, this is what? Spending money? That's not even a weekly grocery shop! Meanwhile, post tax your family earns roughly £610 a week minimum - otherwise equivalent to £2,500 a month against £130 (and that's minimum)
In no one's world is this your sole income, it's nice to get money but do you really need it? I am working on highly conservative estimates here, and while all cash is nice it is not an 'income' - it's a small supplement
Is Trisha's hubby getting 45k? Or is he getting more, like, say an MP? (I'd be interested to know where we draw the 'fair' line) And by 2013 will her kids be at school and will she be able to balance her budget so that this two grand a year fall in revenue can be expected, seeing as it's announced nearly three years in advance
Get a grip, people
The lefties naturally oppose any cut (despite it being against high earners...) and the Mail who usually rail against benefits, despise the cutting of middle-class benefits - so nobody's happy
But I have to ask - is it really that bad?
The Tories, and many supporters, will admit it's ridiculous to pay the wealthiest people (e.g. David Cameron, who can claim £2,500 if he chooses) benefits - and I point to the decent tax breaks in their stead being a far more sensible option than taxing and repaying the middle classes
So why is twenty quid a week so important? Everyone, including families (particularly at the bottom), will have gained hundreds in tax breaks by 2013, so what if we cut off the top 15% from a fairly minor benefit?
We have a huge welfare bill, and a small chop from those who can probably afford it, seems very reasonable to me
There are some notable problems, I admit - the main one being that a family can earn 35 grand twice and keep it, while a sole earner on 50 cannot, thus penalising stay-at-home-mother families
However, how many are being hit by this 'rough justice' as Philip Hammond put it? As he pointed out - the median earnings for a couple both under 44 grand is only 46, while sole earners were in the seventies
In short, just how many people are at the bottom end of this scale - i.e. sole income families earning around 45k? The stats show that the very few people who do live off one wage these days need a little bit more than the higher rate threshold anyway - you will always find people who do exceedingly well from a situation, and those who get caught out quite badly - that's the Mail's job
But as long as it remains a few this is a rather painless cut to the vast majority of people, and is highly unlikely to put anyone into poverty, if it does, I apologise, but I'll take the risk
I agree it's in principle unfair, and a few will benefit to the detriment of others - but the fact is the PAYE system is much, much easier to base this on than means testing all claimants, and therefore more cost-effective - I challenge you to work out a simple way of cutting an unnecessary benefit while keeping it totally fair
I agree it is against traditional Tory principles, they support stay at home mothers, but that's their problem, not mine, I think that's a more philosophical debate for them, for the rest of us however, it will have a tiny impact on families who can largely afford it
Likewise, the 'universality' line they used in the election is going to come back and bite them, because it is a break - they can claim they didn't win the election but who seriously believes this one was caused by the Liberals? They should be cutting extravagant benefits anyway - get some balls, and don't lie in your manifesto (it's not technically lying if you don't win...)
It's a few grand (tops), to those who are paying higher rate tax - I bloody wish I was paying higher rate tax...
Also, I must take issue with the man in the Newsnight crowd who claimed it went against aspirational values - i.e. people wouldn't aspire to earn 44k because they might lose a benefit of 20 quid a week
Does he not understand maths? If they are aspirational, all they have to aspire to is 47k before they wipe out the perceived loss (dependent on number of kids) and they are back in 'aspiring' territory - do people just get to the threshold and sit there forever more?
With the increase in the tax threshold and allowances we are getting a good deal for losing a bit at the top end - it's unlikely people are going to be worse off in general when you look at the overall picture of taxation, so I think this is a perfectly fair, and rational, decision
In my mind (though I doubt anyone else's), surely the Lib Dems are doing well here - without them we wouldn't have got the big increases in the allowance, and with them this wouldn't have been cut - I doubt anyone will note that they're the ones with the popular policies, however
Also this 'no families on more than 26k of benefits' needs some fleshing out - is that 'every' benefit? And how do you keep tabs on all the various payments made?
I agree it needs doing (and frankly 26k is too high), but it's going to be bloody difficult when you consider housing costs in certain areas (as Nick Robinson points out)
But this is way more fun than the sodding Labour soap opera
Update: The BBC are using 'human' stories from the people to point out the flaws (which are obvious)
'Trisha' from Hertfordshire claimed it was the only income she gets - right, besides the 44k+ that you get from your husband/partner?
Let's break that down - you are 'earning' £20 or £34 (average number of kids is two) a week, this is what? Spending money? That's not even a weekly grocery shop! Meanwhile, post tax your family earns roughly £610 a week minimum - otherwise equivalent to £2,500 a month against £130 (and that's minimum)
In no one's world is this your sole income, it's nice to get money but do you really need it? I am working on highly conservative estimates here, and while all cash is nice it is not an 'income' - it's a small supplement
Is Trisha's hubby getting 45k? Or is he getting more, like, say an MP? (I'd be interested to know where we draw the 'fair' line) And by 2013 will her kids be at school and will she be able to balance her budget so that this two grand a year fall in revenue can be expected, seeing as it's announced nearly three years in advance
Get a grip, people
13 May 2010
The Big Questions need answering!
Such as:
What policies have the Tories/Liberals ditched?
Will there be a VAT rise?
Where will the cuts come?
and the really important one...
will there be a Tory and a Lib Dem on Question Time?
What policies have the Tories/Liberals ditched?
Will there be a VAT rise?
Where will the cuts come?
and the really important one...
will there be a Tory and a Lib Dem on Question Time?
08 May 2010
Well this is fun...
So the votes have been counted, but I am not going to bore you with tales of what Clegg should demand, or point out the Tory idiots who refuse to compromise despite not winning a majority
Instead, here's a few facts and figures:
Cons got 10.7 million (36%) - up 2 million, swing of 3.8% - gain 113 seats to 306 (47%)
Labour got 8.6 million (29%) - down 800,000, swing of -6.2% - lost 98 seats to 258 (39.7%)
Libs got 6.8 million (23%) - up 900,000, swing of 1% - lost 5 seats to 57 (8.8%)
More and more this system looks incredibly unfair - we have a national election, with televised leaders' debates and campaigns focused on the leaders, but yet we hold on to a flawed local system that is not reflective of the national vote (although in some ways this is the most reflective for years, as there's no majority)
This may sound like a cry for the Lib Dems (and quite frankly, why shouldn't it be?) but look at this:
in 2005 Labour got 9.5 million votes (35.3%)
Tories got 8.7 million (32.3%)
a difference of less than 800,000 votes - it gave Labour 158 more seats and a majority of 22 - in this election, Gordon Brown has got fewer votes than Michael Howard had, despite a vastly higher turnout, Cameron has beaten him by nearly three times the amount that Blair beat Howard by, and yet Labour only go down to 258 - despite this being their worst poll since 1983, and second worst since the first world war, meanwhile the Tories get a higher share of the vote than the last Labour majority, and indeed all their own majorities after Thatcher's initial win, and yet are still short of the winning post.
Clearly something is not right, Labour have blatantly been gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves and effectively cannot get anywhere near Hagues tiddly 166 seats - and yes, you guessed it, even he got more votes than Brown
I say this not as a disgruntled Tory (and nor do I believe that 36% should give you carte blanche in Parliament), but out of horror that we have got a system that is so blatantly biased that a margin that gave Blair his whopping majority in 2001 cannot even give Cameron a simple majority - it's insane, and frankly the Tories are fools for supporting it, the country has clearly moved on from local constituency voting, the television debates only confirmed that, and more importantly for the Tories it is now in their best interests to support reform
And seriously, a million extra votes, a 1% gain...five seats lost and a reduced share of seats
People are going to start getting pissed at this - the young in particular are becoming less tribal and are seeing a national party who they gave nearly seven million votes to get dicked around because they could only finish a strong second in a hundred safe seats - why the bloody hell should it be right that the biggest minority in a seat get full control, where a difference of 1 vote (yes, several seats were under a margin of 100) can see over half the population's vote wasted simply because of where the arbitrary geographical line is drawn around them? In the east of England, where Labour don't exist (save for some now-defeated parts of Norfolk and Basildon) the Lib Dems are the second party - they got just over half the vote the Tories did, otherwise known as a ratio of 1:2 - the Tories got 52 seats...the Libs got 4
It's an old argument, but I feel now the case is stronger than ever - we have a record vote for the Lib Dems (and a record piss-take), and it's now seriously affecting the Tories, electoral reform is more important than ever
...not that it means it will happen
Instead, here's a few facts and figures:
Cons got 10.7 million (36%) - up 2 million, swing of 3.8% - gain 113 seats to 306 (47%)
Labour got 8.6 million (29%) - down 800,000, swing of -6.2% - lost 98 seats to 258 (39.7%)
Libs got 6.8 million (23%) - up 900,000, swing of 1% - lost 5 seats to 57 (8.8%)
More and more this system looks incredibly unfair - we have a national election, with televised leaders' debates and campaigns focused on the leaders, but yet we hold on to a flawed local system that is not reflective of the national vote (although in some ways this is the most reflective for years, as there's no majority)
This may sound like a cry for the Lib Dems (and quite frankly, why shouldn't it be?) but look at this:
in 2005 Labour got 9.5 million votes (35.3%)
Tories got 8.7 million (32.3%)
a difference of less than 800,000 votes - it gave Labour 158 more seats and a majority of 22 - in this election, Gordon Brown has got fewer votes than Michael Howard had, despite a vastly higher turnout, Cameron has beaten him by nearly three times the amount that Blair beat Howard by, and yet Labour only go down to 258 - despite this being their worst poll since 1983, and second worst since the first world war, meanwhile the Tories get a higher share of the vote than the last Labour majority, and indeed all their own majorities after Thatcher's initial win, and yet are still short of the winning post.
Clearly something is not right, Labour have blatantly been gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves and effectively cannot get anywhere near Hagues tiddly 166 seats - and yes, you guessed it, even he got more votes than Brown
I say this not as a disgruntled Tory (and nor do I believe that 36% should give you carte blanche in Parliament), but out of horror that we have got a system that is so blatantly biased that a margin that gave Blair his whopping majority in 2001 cannot even give Cameron a simple majority - it's insane, and frankly the Tories are fools for supporting it, the country has clearly moved on from local constituency voting, the television debates only confirmed that, and more importantly for the Tories it is now in their best interests to support reform
And seriously, a million extra votes, a 1% gain...five seats lost and a reduced share of seats
People are going to start getting pissed at this - the young in particular are becoming less tribal and are seeing a national party who they gave nearly seven million votes to get dicked around because they could only finish a strong second in a hundred safe seats - why the bloody hell should it be right that the biggest minority in a seat get full control, where a difference of 1 vote (yes, several seats were under a margin of 100) can see over half the population's vote wasted simply because of where the arbitrary geographical line is drawn around them? In the east of England, where Labour don't exist (save for some now-defeated parts of Norfolk and Basildon) the Lib Dems are the second party - they got just over half the vote the Tories did, otherwise known as a ratio of 1:2 - the Tories got 52 seats...the Libs got 4
It's an old argument, but I feel now the case is stronger than ever - we have a record vote for the Lib Dems (and a record piss-take), and it's now seriously affecting the Tories, electoral reform is more important than ever
...not that it means it will happen
19 April 2010
Tories deserve what they get
I was just on Guido reading the latest Bingle diatribe and I thought I'd post my thoughts here too:
Because we don't bloody want the Tories - just because Labour are utter crap does not mean you get to automatically win, that sheer arrogance is why all the swing voters are backing the third party, bring us some real policies, real ideas and real leadership - you do not deserve to win, and people will try their hardest to keep both parties down
How f***ing dare the Tories believe they are entitled to win, effectively they could have put a sheep as head of their party and expected to win - it's wrong, we deserve a choice to vote FOR, not against, our political system is badly broken and that is why the voters with brains will try to get a hung parliament, too long have we been kept down by the cosy collaboration of the big two
And don't even get me started on Cameron's line about voting for Clegg and getting Brown - vote for whoever you bloody want, and people are smart enough to know how to vote tactically on a local basis in our ridiculous system, I really hope that insult to the intelligence of voters pushes more people away from the chinless wonder
"There was a mixture of gallows humour and real concern. Nobody could understand why with the most unpopular PM ever and an economy on its back the Tory Party is polling at the same level as Michael Howard when he lost in 2005. The only solution was to have another glass of wine."
Because we don't bloody want the Tories - just because Labour are utter crap does not mean you get to automatically win, that sheer arrogance is why all the swing voters are backing the third party, bring us some real policies, real ideas and real leadership - you do not deserve to win, and people will try their hardest to keep both parties down
How f***ing dare the Tories believe they are entitled to win, effectively they could have put a sheep as head of their party and expected to win - it's wrong, we deserve a choice to vote FOR, not against, our political system is badly broken and that is why the voters with brains will try to get a hung parliament, too long have we been kept down by the cosy collaboration of the big two
And don't even get me started on Cameron's line about voting for Clegg and getting Brown - vote for whoever you bloody want, and people are smart enough to know how to vote tactically on a local basis in our ridiculous system, I really hope that insult to the intelligence of voters pushes more people away from the chinless wonder
18 February 2010
Comedy Genius
'Sir' Nicholas Winterton, who has already made an arse of himself with his fellow-MP wife over renting his own property, has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, said that MPs 'need' to travel first-class
Guido's already picked it up, and I don't really need to have a rant (did that in the car..) but I heard it live and it was brilliant, particularly as he was on to discuss the Falklands..
But what I do want to say is that Stephen Nolan has been brilliant the last few days, he's been covering Victoria Derbyshire this week and he's turned the slot into a Paxman-esque grilling of politicians, far more fun, I wish he'd stay, Victoria is alright, but she wouldn't get him to announce that MPs are a different type of people (although knowing Sir Nick...)
I would like to address a few issues, however
Why exactly was it fair to pay rent for a property he already owned? How is that justified, even if it's an 'allowance' not 'expenses' - that's taking all you can get regardless
Secondly he said you can't get a seat in standard class, that would only apply to rush hour, but he also said children travel in standard class - I've never experienced children in rush hour, at 7am there are no seats, but also no kids
Furthermore, he's from Macclesfield and has a London flat...so he's not a commuter and wouldn't even be on a train in rush hour...hence he experiences noisy children in standard, and hence there would be seats available
I am reminded of that train ad that suggests you go by train (standard class) to get some much-needed work done rather than having to drive...apparently not MPs
I also found this from his local paper
So when the hell is he claiming for first class travel?? He claims 6 grand on it, not a low figure - he says he's cheap but that's overall and down to an incredibly stingy office budget - generally I'd say office budgets are far more beneficial to the public, and they don't go on the individual but staff and costs
This also raises the issue of MPs standing down - why should we be subject to this sort of behaviour? Because he's not going for re-election he can do absolutely anything, he might as well start waving a Nazi flag around for four or five years, MPs should be subject to some sort of scrutiny, not given five years of complete freedom, perhaps we need a power of recall in these cases
Guido's already picked it up, and I don't really need to have a rant (did that in the car..) but I heard it live and it was brilliant, particularly as he was on to discuss the Falklands..
But what I do want to say is that Stephen Nolan has been brilliant the last few days, he's been covering Victoria Derbyshire this week and he's turned the slot into a Paxman-esque grilling of politicians, far more fun, I wish he'd stay, Victoria is alright, but she wouldn't get him to announce that MPs are a different type of people (although knowing Sir Nick...)
I would like to address a few issues, however
Why exactly was it fair to pay rent for a property he already owned? How is that justified, even if it's an 'allowance' not 'expenses' - that's taking all you can get regardless
Secondly he said you can't get a seat in standard class, that would only apply to rush hour, but he also said children travel in standard class - I've never experienced children in rush hour, at 7am there are no seats, but also no kids
Furthermore, he's from Macclesfield and has a London flat...so he's not a commuter and wouldn't even be on a train in rush hour...hence he experiences noisy children in standard, and hence there would be seats available
I am reminded of that train ad that suggests you go by train (standard class) to get some much-needed work done rather than having to drive...apparently not MPs
I also found this from his local paper
And I drive with my wife to and from London, which is vastly cheaper than the train, and I also subsidise my travel with my salary." (April 2009)
So when the hell is he claiming for first class travel?? He claims 6 grand on it, not a low figure - he says he's cheap but that's overall and down to an incredibly stingy office budget - generally I'd say office budgets are far more beneficial to the public, and they don't go on the individual but staff and costs
This also raises the issue of MPs standing down - why should we be subject to this sort of behaviour? Because he's not going for re-election he can do absolutely anything, he might as well start waving a Nazi flag around for four or five years, MPs should be subject to some sort of scrutiny, not given five years of complete freedom, perhaps we need a power of recall in these cases
10 February 2010
A few more tory lies
I'm developing a bit of a theme here - this isn't a partisan blog, and Brown is behaving like an overgrown 2-year-old, but he's not the one opposing reform for the sake of it, and lying about it
The Tories have an opinion on electoral reform but what are they actually lying about? I hear you ask
Take this from Dominic Grieve:
Have you ever 'got rid' of an MP you don't want?
The usual arrogant claptrap from the Tories - they keep most of their MPs through ridiculous safe seats where they face no scrutiny at all and with the first past the post system it is virtually impossible to defeat the biggest minority vote - this, in the Tories' minds (and Labour's btw), is a fair system and means people actually want those MPs...when most people don't actually know the name of their MP or PPC
I'll give you my own local example - all over East Anglia Tory MPs like mine hold majorities of a few thousand, few, if any, have a 50% majority but they win with a bedrock of support - the fact that 60% do not want the Tory is ignored, how is that electing the 'most popular' and indeed how can 'you get rid of' an MP when all the opposition votes are split - are you seriously telling me that since 1950 whatever Tory has held the seat has been wanted?
Alternative vote will (sorry, 'would') be a slightly better, less negative system as it will force a two-horse race, the Tories are right that it will cause a 'least unpopular' system, but it's a lie to suggest we have a 'most popular' system now, especially when they seem to support reality in choosing governments (ie. an unfair system for a distinct government change) but don't support that at constituency level
Their view is a slap in the face to all of us in the majority who don't want their hand-picked chums representing us
The Tories have an opinion on electoral reform but what are they actually lying about? I hear you ask
Take this from Dominic Grieve:
The current system delivered "clear, clean results" and allowed voters to "get rid of" MPs they did not want.
Have you ever 'got rid' of an MP you don't want?
The usual arrogant claptrap from the Tories - they keep most of their MPs through ridiculous safe seats where they face no scrutiny at all and with the first past the post system it is virtually impossible to defeat the biggest minority vote - this, in the Tories' minds (and Labour's btw), is a fair system and means people actually want those MPs...when most people don't actually know the name of their MP or PPC
I'll give you my own local example - all over East Anglia Tory MPs like mine hold majorities of a few thousand, few, if any, have a 50% majority but they win with a bedrock of support - the fact that 60% do not want the Tory is ignored, how is that electing the 'most popular' and indeed how can 'you get rid of' an MP when all the opposition votes are split - are you seriously telling me that since 1950 whatever Tory has held the seat has been wanted?
Alternative vote will (sorry, 'would') be a slightly better, less negative system as it will force a two-horse race, the Tories are right that it will cause a 'least unpopular' system, but it's a lie to suggest we have a 'most popular' system now, especially when they seem to support reality in choosing governments (ie. an unfair system for a distinct government change) but don't support that at constituency level
Their view is a slap in the face to all of us in the majority who don't want their hand-picked chums representing us
01 February 2010
Why do they deserve to vote on the system that produced them?
News reaches me that Labour are to try and bring in an AV system
Good, I guess, but my first reaction was - what right do a party elected by this severely flawed system, led by an unelected and unwanted prime minister, who will almost all be thrown out in three months time, have to decide our electoral system, which they have gerrymandered no end?
Meanwhile the opposition are totally against it because...well, they like winning
and Labour are only doing it t paint said opposition as anti-reform
I despair
(in fairness anything Brown tries to introduce makes me wince - because I cannot recognise him as our leader, because he's not, we were never asked)
Good, I guess, but my first reaction was - what right do a party elected by this severely flawed system, led by an unelected and unwanted prime minister, who will almost all be thrown out in three months time, have to decide our electoral system, which they have gerrymandered no end?
Meanwhile the opposition are totally against it because...well, they like winning
and Labour are only doing it t paint said opposition as anti-reform
I despair
(in fairness anything Brown tries to introduce makes me wince - because I cannot recognise him as our leader, because he's not, we were never asked)
23 December 2009
When marriage is at all time low, is it a good idea to insult everyone who isn't married?
The Tory marriage plan really irks at me - first and foremost it's based on flawed analysis and shallow reasoning - and secondly, it's just insulting to all those from 'broken homes' (like me!)
The Tories say marriage will become exclusively middle-class, and that will be detrimental to lower-income people, right... Forgive me if I find that a little bit patronising
I'm middle-class (perhaps upper-lower-middle-class) and my mother never married, on principle - she may just be being bloody-minded but we seem to have done quite well, and I'm telling you I know of few people who agree with this 'marriage is great' rubbish - the younger ones who do want to get married have no issue with co-habiters and blended families, they're so common it's impossible not to accept them
The only people likely to go for it are the Tory hardcore - the sort of people who believe Peter Hitchens is real, perhaps it's to shore up the core vote as the Tories drift increasingly to the middle, much like Labour ramp up benefits and protect public sector jobs for their core
This is the one socially conservative policy the Tories have - but I question it, traditional old ladies may agree with it, but I would say a lot of people dislike it and it's probably doing more harm than good by annoying those swing voters who tend to sit in the middle and could see this as old fashioned bigotry
It may be that other issues take precedence in the election, but it does nothing for me but turn me off Cameron - I find it to be judgemental, another minus point for the Tories - not that I'm the sort of voter they want, of course
*Apologies for the lazy entry - it's Christmas, I'm busy and can only devote so much of my time to being angry
The Tories say marriage will become exclusively middle-class, and that will be detrimental to lower-income people, right... Forgive me if I find that a little bit patronising
I'm middle-class (perhaps upper-lower-middle-class) and my mother never married, on principle - she may just be being bloody-minded but we seem to have done quite well, and I'm telling you I know of few people who agree with this 'marriage is great' rubbish - the younger ones who do want to get married have no issue with co-habiters and blended families, they're so common it's impossible not to accept them
The only people likely to go for it are the Tory hardcore - the sort of people who believe Peter Hitchens is real, perhaps it's to shore up the core vote as the Tories drift increasingly to the middle, much like Labour ramp up benefits and protect public sector jobs for their core
This is the one socially conservative policy the Tories have - but I question it, traditional old ladies may agree with it, but I would say a lot of people dislike it and it's probably doing more harm than good by annoying those swing voters who tend to sit in the middle and could see this as old fashioned bigotry
It may be that other issues take precedence in the election, but it does nothing for me but turn me off Cameron - I find it to be judgemental, another minus point for the Tories - not that I'm the sort of voter they want, of course
*Apologies for the lazy entry - it's Christmas, I'm busy and can only devote so much of my time to being angry
20 December 2009
A good old Tory smokescreen
After that gross miscarriage of justice where a man beat the living snot out of a pinned-down burglar with a cricket bat, metal bar and hockey stick used reasonable force to defend his home, the Tories have pledged to review householder rights
Only can you see the problem with referring to this case to appeal to the masses who want to be able to defend their home?
Namely, this was 'grossly disproportionate' - any change in the law would have seen Mr. Hussain still guilty of a crime and sent to jail
Hussain was not convicted for defending himself or his home, he wasn't done for breaking the guy's leg y chucking a table at him - as the judge made patently obvious, he was convicted for pinning the fleeing burglar down and giving him brain damage as he and his brother beat him weapons
I am all for defending property, and the judge made it clear he had the right to defend his property - that doesn't extend to executing your own form of malicious revenge, that's why we have the police and the courts
Any Tory proposal wouldn't change this case, this is just smoke and mirrors to appeal to the Daily Mail crowd
Mr Grayling said: "Conservatives argue that the defence that the law offers a householder should be much clearer, and that prosecutions and convictions should only happen in cases where courts judge the actions involved to be 'grossly disproportionate'."
Only can you see the problem with referring to this case to appeal to the masses who want to be able to defend their home?
Namely, this was 'grossly disproportionate' - any change in the law would have seen Mr. Hussain still guilty of a crime and sent to jail
Hussain was not convicted for defending himself or his home, he wasn't done for breaking the guy's leg y chucking a table at him - as the judge made patently obvious, he was convicted for pinning the fleeing burglar down and giving him brain damage as he and his brother beat him weapons
I am all for defending property, and the judge made it clear he had the right to defend his property - that doesn't extend to executing your own form of malicious revenge, that's why we have the police and the courts
Any Tory proposal wouldn't change this case, this is just smoke and mirrors to appeal to the Daily Mail crowd
19 November 2009
I'm not turning into a socialist am I?
The Times Money Central has a list of the top ten millionaires on the Tory front bench (out of a staggering 19)
Is it wrong to feel a slight bit worried about being run by millionaires?
I have no objection to people earning this amount of money, or indeed inheriting it, but it's the influence of money on power that I have a problem with - nineteen millionaires, it's about two thirds of the shadow cabinet, and includes all the big guns - is it not somewhat unrepresentative to have a country run by people in the top 0-point-something percentile?
Equality aside, it's more the fact that it's clear that we are still being run by money and the landowning classes, people like Hague and Philip Hammond were successful in business, but most, like Cameron, Osbourne and Strathclyde (a surviving hereditary peer, great) are merely 'from money' - how does this serve the people?
Fortunately Labour lost their working credibility decades ago so I have no need to consider them, and this certainly isn't a tory-specific problem, but it really is galling to see how we are still being run by the landed interests, as it were
I feel very strangely socialist writing this, but I don't want to be run by a bunch of privileged politicos who've never done a days work in their lives
---
A.N Wilson, the Mail's most sensible (non-MP) commentator, says we really should stop being offended so much, in the Daily Mail
Anyone seeing any irony here?
---
The Mail also have a comedic list of funny exam answers - but they just can't help getting a kick in at today's 'dumbed down' questions, it must therefore be a proven fact, of course (because they're still not dumbed down enough!!)
Some things: firstly, it's belittling each successive generation's efforts, so if I say I'm smart and probably have more qualifications than them, and used to write silly things in either R.E. exams or questions I had the foggiest in (who didn't?) they can say everything is 'dumbed down' and I'm stupid too
and secondly, can you answer these questions:
'What did Gandhi and Genghis Khan have in common?' (aside from unusual names, of course)
'What is the highest frequency noise that a human can register?'
Some seriously useful questions there, good old standardised testing - and one day I'll find a use for algebra...
And I do wonder if smarty-pants writers at the Mail know what a nitrate is
Is it wrong to feel a slight bit worried about being run by millionaires?
I have no objection to people earning this amount of money, or indeed inheriting it, but it's the influence of money on power that I have a problem with - nineteen millionaires, it's about two thirds of the shadow cabinet, and includes all the big guns - is it not somewhat unrepresentative to have a country run by people in the top 0-point-something percentile?
Equality aside, it's more the fact that it's clear that we are still being run by money and the landowning classes, people like Hague and Philip Hammond were successful in business, but most, like Cameron, Osbourne and Strathclyde (a surviving hereditary peer, great) are merely 'from money' - how does this serve the people?
Fortunately Labour lost their working credibility decades ago so I have no need to consider them, and this certainly isn't a tory-specific problem, but it really is galling to see how we are still being run by the landed interests, as it were
I feel very strangely socialist writing this, but I don't want to be run by a bunch of privileged politicos who've never done a days work in their lives
---
A.N Wilson, the Mail's most sensible (non-MP) commentator, says we really should stop being offended so much, in the Daily Mail
Anyone seeing any irony here?
---
The Mail also have a comedic list of funny exam answers - but they just can't help getting a kick in at today's 'dumbed down' questions, it must therefore be a proven fact, of course (because they're still not dumbed down enough!!)
Some things: firstly, it's belittling each successive generation's efforts, so if I say I'm smart and probably have more qualifications than them, and used to write silly things in either R.E. exams or questions I had the foggiest in (who didn't?) they can say everything is 'dumbed down' and I'm stupid too
and secondly, can you answer these questions:
'What did Gandhi and Genghis Khan have in common?' (aside from unusual names, of course)
'What is the highest frequency noise that a human can register?'
Some seriously useful questions there, good old standardised testing - and one day I'll find a use for algebra...
And I do wonder if smarty-pants writers at the Mail know what a nitrate is
Looks like a chicken again
Seriously, he does!
Clegg looks sad....awww, bet he hates the whole thing
12 November 2009
MPs clearly have never worked in the real world
MPs and peers were today engaged in a clash over 'reply to all' emails
An email from Tory Mark Pritchard was sent to everyone in Parliament apparently, and responses were sent 'to all' - meaning that everyone received a constant stream of rubbish emails they didn't want
Lib Dem Greg Mulholland replied with the following
Bad e-mail etiquette perhaps, but have these people never worked in an office? Get in the real world boys, where people your age actually have to learn how to use emails, and put up with nonsense thread emails every day
But this stupidity gets worse, Pritchard got a dig in at the softie Liberals (who oppose his ideas):
This from a man who actually sent a Parliamentary email to about 1300 people and got them all 'replying to all' - really security conscious, Mark
I will be researching this cyber-security plan of his to see if the Lib Dems really are treating it lightly, but initial evidence would point to this being tosh, as:
Right...serious issue then
An email from Tory Mark Pritchard was sent to everyone in Parliament apparently, and responses were sent 'to all' - meaning that everyone received a constant stream of rubbish emails they didn't want
Lib Dem Greg Mulholland replied with the following
"IF I GET ANOTHER UNSOLICTED EMAIL ABOUT THIS CR*P I WILL BE MAKING A COMPLAINT. PUT YOUR BRAINS IN GEAR AND STOP BOTHERING ALL MPs and PEERS WITH THIS!!!! NO MORE REPLY ALL"
Bad e-mail etiquette perhaps, but have these people never worked in an office? Get in the real world boys, where people your age actually have to learn how to use emails, and put up with nonsense thread emails every day
But this stupidity gets worse, Pritchard got a dig in at the softie Liberals (who oppose his ideas):
"I am not surprised by Liberal Democrats treating cyber-security so lightly...It is also clear that some Liberal Democrat politicians need training in answering e-mails correctly without sending the same reply to every Tom, Dick and Harry."
This from a man who actually sent a Parliamentary email to about 1300 people and got them all 'replying to all' - really security conscious, Mark
I will be researching this cyber-security plan of his to see if the Lib Dems really are treating it lightly, but initial evidence would point to this being tosh, as:
The Wrekin MP said his new All Party Parliamentary Group for Cyber-Security had attracted support from senior MPs including Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, [and] former cyber security minister Tom Watson
Right...serious issue then
04 November 2009
Cameron's shameless, amid other things
Am I going to say David Cameron 'reneged' or 'betrayed' eurosceptics?
Nope - as Hague says:
The referendum was about the treaty, it was always said in the 'cast-iron' guarantee that if the treaty had been ratified then they couldn't do anything, there is no 'U-turn' or reneging here, I believe it is in fact, worse than that
Maybe they have honestly been scuppered by the final ratification, or, as I theorise, this was the plan all along, promising a referendum in the Sun, of all places, to get the backing of the eurosceptic majority in this country two years ago - while knowing full well they would never have to go through with such a dangerous idea
Now time will tell how this pans out - he will suffer an initial backlash for seemingly 'betraying' people, but what he will be betting on is having made enough anti-EU noise to keep the support of the voters, while not actually having to do anything but make a few vague sentiments about 'repatriating powers' - clever, huh?
Cameron just wants power, anyone who actually bought that he had any intention of giving us a referendum on the treaty was being played for a fool
---
Maybe people WANT a new TV
Apparently the digital switchover in the North-West, which will affect 7.2 million people, may cause 'chaos' as TVs are needlessly thrown away
I remember talking about this back in 2007, when a YouGov survey revealed that 57% of people believed that the government had provided 'insuffiecient or no information' about the switchover, and 83% did not know when the switch would be in their region (survey at YouGov archives, Society - 2007)
Neither do I in fact...but does it really matter, because in 2007 '80% of adults [had] digital television in their home'
So while a majority don't have a clue about how and when (like me), they are already completely covered and already watch digital - surely all that matters is that they have digital
The fear is that people will throw away a perfectly good tv when they could just buy a set-top box
In the past year in Cumbria, 50,000 TVs wee recycled - 'This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent compared to same period last year.' (so that's an extra 20,500 TVs), in the south west they had an increase of just under 40,000 TVs - so we can say 60,000 extra TVs were recycled
Of the ones in Cumbria, 30,000 could have been converted - so that's at least ten thousand TVs that would have been recycled anyway, curiously the Mail do not report how many could have been saved in the South-West
So we have 20,000 'wasted' TVs reported - is that a bad amount? Does that indicate that people are confused, after adverts every five minutes saying 'all you need is a set-top box' for what, five years?
I happened to throw away a convertible (?) TV last year, it even had a digi-box on it, the reason I got rid of it? - because it was crap and we got a new LCD, it was damaged and of no use to anyone, but this would've been counted as a TV that could have received digital and was 'needlessly thrown away' - plug it in and you would throw it away too
And when the switchover happens, would you not expect a few people to think, 'time to update the TV' - maybe they don't actually want a box on their old TV and decided to get a new one - I can't honestly believe little old ladies haven't had it drilled into their skulls that they don't need a new TV, I've never met anyone who thought they need a new one - but I know plenty who bought a new one - a little upswing in dumping TVs is surely expected
It could also be explained by the chucking of bedroom tvs - I have a little old sony, I have no intention of upgrading it - would you seriously go out and get 3 or 4 boxes for every tv in the house? No, I'd just buy a new one, it's 200 quid either way - I'm not surprised if a few of those get chucked out (mine isn't btw, it can be put to other use)
I can't find good figures for the populations of the TV regions, but you can assume there are at least 1 million households in the South-West and Cumbria combined, so that's 60,000 extra TVs thrown away - 6% of households threw away more TVs than the previous year, at a ridiculously conservative guess, and assuming they were all compatible (and how many TVs are there in the regions, let alone houses)
Is that such a catastrophe?
---
The Mail really do need to stop trying so hard
More BBC controversy - they attacked the Queen!! (again!!1!1!!)
Miranda Hart, on HIGNFY, described the Queen and the DoE as 'that Greek twit and his Kraut wife'
ooh, nasty racist jibe there - which in fairness it is, stinks of hypocrisy after they pulled that silly Hobnob joke doesn't it?
Only, the Mail left something out until a bit further down the story (after the outrage comments...)
Now, does that not make a teeny bit more sense? It's satire - I am not foolish enough to believe the writers at the Mail actually think it's offensive in any way, but if anyone actually found that offensive they need a humour-rectomy
It's not actually racist, so it doesn't become an inconsistent piece of handling or 'double standards', as the Mail conclude, once again they wilfully mislead their readers in their attacks on the Beeb
There are of course some that feel that the Queen is out-of-bounds for humour - fortunately most people are not annoying royalists
...only Rebecca Adlington is granted such status
Nope - as Hague says:
'now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means that a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the President of the European Council...'
The referendum was about the treaty, it was always said in the 'cast-iron' guarantee that if the treaty had been ratified then they couldn't do anything, there is no 'U-turn' or reneging here, I believe it is in fact, worse than that
Maybe they have honestly been scuppered by the final ratification, or, as I theorise, this was the plan all along, promising a referendum in the Sun, of all places, to get the backing of the eurosceptic majority in this country two years ago - while knowing full well they would never have to go through with such a dangerous idea
Now time will tell how this pans out - he will suffer an initial backlash for seemingly 'betraying' people, but what he will be betting on is having made enough anti-EU noise to keep the support of the voters, while not actually having to do anything but make a few vague sentiments about 'repatriating powers' - clever, huh?
Cameron just wants power, anyone who actually bought that he had any intention of giving us a referendum on the treaty was being played for a fool
---
Maybe people WANT a new TV
Apparently the digital switchover in the North-West, which will affect 7.2 million people, may cause 'chaos' as TVs are needlessly thrown away
I remember talking about this back in 2007, when a YouGov survey revealed that 57% of people believed that the government had provided 'insuffiecient or no information' about the switchover, and 83% did not know when the switch would be in their region (survey at YouGov archives, Society - 2007)
Neither do I in fact...but does it really matter, because in 2007 '80% of adults [had] digital television in their home'
So while a majority don't have a clue about how and when (like me), they are already completely covered and already watch digital - surely all that matters is that they have digital
The fear is that people will throw away a perfectly good tv when they could just buy a set-top box
In the past year in Cumbria, 50,000 TVs wee recycled - 'This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent compared to same period last year.' (so that's an extra 20,500 TVs), in the south west they had an increase of just under 40,000 TVs - so we can say 60,000 extra TVs were recycled
Of the ones in Cumbria, 30,000 could have been converted - so that's at least ten thousand TVs that would have been recycled anyway, curiously the Mail do not report how many could have been saved in the South-West
So we have 20,000 'wasted' TVs reported - is that a bad amount? Does that indicate that people are confused, after adverts every five minutes saying 'all you need is a set-top box' for what, five years?
I happened to throw away a convertible (?) TV last year, it even had a digi-box on it, the reason I got rid of it? - because it was crap and we got a new LCD, it was damaged and of no use to anyone, but this would've been counted as a TV that could have received digital and was 'needlessly thrown away' - plug it in and you would throw it away too
And when the switchover happens, would you not expect a few people to think, 'time to update the TV' - maybe they don't actually want a box on their old TV and decided to get a new one - I can't honestly believe little old ladies haven't had it drilled into their skulls that they don't need a new TV, I've never met anyone who thought they need a new one - but I know plenty who bought a new one - a little upswing in dumping TVs is surely expected
It could also be explained by the chucking of bedroom tvs - I have a little old sony, I have no intention of upgrading it - would you seriously go out and get 3 or 4 boxes for every tv in the house? No, I'd just buy a new one, it's 200 quid either way - I'm not surprised if a few of those get chucked out (mine isn't btw, it can be put to other use)
I can't find good figures for the populations of the TV regions, but you can assume there are at least 1 million households in the South-West and Cumbria combined, so that's 60,000 extra TVs thrown away - 6% of households threw away more TVs than the previous year, at a ridiculously conservative guess, and assuming they were all compatible (and how many TVs are there in the regions, let alone houses)
Is that such a catastrophe?
---
The Mail really do need to stop trying so hard
More BBC controversy - they attacked the Queen!! (again!!1!1!!)
Miranda Hart, on HIGNFY, described the Queen and the DoE as 'that Greek twit and his Kraut wife'
ooh, nasty racist jibe there - which in fairness it is, stinks of hypocrisy after they pulled that silly Hobnob joke doesn't it?
Only, the Mail left something out until a bit further down the story (after the outrage comments...)
At a Buckingham Palace event in honour of Indian president Pratibha Patil, Philip said to businessman Atul Patel: 'There's a lot of your family here tonight.'
Miss Hart joked: 'There is no place for racism in the modern world and the sooner that Greek twit and his Kraut wife realise it, the better.'
Now, does that not make a teeny bit more sense? It's satire - I am not foolish enough to believe the writers at the Mail actually think it's offensive in any way, but if anyone actually found that offensive they need a humour-rectomy
It's not actually racist, so it doesn't become an inconsistent piece of handling or 'double standards', as the Mail conclude, once again they wilfully mislead their readers in their attacks on the Beeb
There are of course some that feel that the Queen is out-of-bounds for humour - fortunately most people are not annoying royalists
...only Rebecca Adlington is granted such status
27 October 2009
Bedroom Snooping?
The media are having a bit of a field day with news that the next census will be the 'most intrusive ever carried out'
What outrage! Right, so let's have a look at the ONS site, where the Mail found this information, for it, shall we
Did you get that - overnight visitors 'present on census night'
That's not so bad is it? Just one night, in case that person isn't at home that night, and did you notice the asterisks next to certain questions? Those indicate new questions (some were even mentioned by the Mail) - number of bedrooms is new, but number of rooms is not, evidence available on the old censuses here
Other new questions shown are on civil partnerships and identity, as well as ones for entry into the UK (for non-citizens) - that's it, so I really don't get how this is anymore intrusive - counting bedrooms is apparently wrong
Funny that, because counting rooms never has been - here is 2001:
And just in case this is a despicable Labour plan, here it is in 1991
Pretty standard practice then - counting bedrooms though is too far, because previously you could only count rooms, but not bathrooms or toilets - so you couldn't simply work it out by just taking 2 or 3 off the total - i.e. kitchen and living room, maybe a study/dining room - the rest are what....reception areas?
Seems a pretty reasonable request to me - many people these days have 2 living rooms, and I don't really see how it's intrusive to ask a basic estate agent question
But the Mail (and apparently the Tories) seem to think the government are after all the details of your guests, snooping into who you sleep with every night of the year - despite this only referring to one night, as censuses are based on one single day, and you can even lie and just say you were home - the visitor question is I believe, so that you don't miss out if you're not at home, hence why they take your usual address
But don't let me witter on, here's the evidence, 2001:
1991:
I felt the article was particularly misleading (yes, more than usual) - but I can't find any real way to lodge an official complaint, as they seem to have covered themselves pretty well using implications and faux-outrage, with well placed, non-specific quotes - the bit I really object to is this (red = my words)
The 2011 census will ask these things - but they are implying it's some sort of new thing, this is very misleading to me, but as they only imply it, is there really a case for complaint?
I guess that's what they pay their writers to do instead of actual writing...
The Conservatives said the attempt to find out sleeping arrangements was particularly objectionable. [Tory Nick Hurd] said "An increasingly invasive and intrusive census will erode public support, cost more and result in a less accurate survey."This is in regards to finding out that
'The 2011 survey will demand to know how many bedrooms there are in homes and detailed information about any 'overnight visitors'
What outrage! Right, so let's have a look at the ONS site, where the Mail found this information, for it, shall we
That's not so bad is it? Just one night, in case that person isn't at home that night, and did you notice the asterisks next to certain questions? Those indicate new questions (some were even mentioned by the Mail) - number of bedrooms is new, but number of rooms is not, evidence available on the old censuses here
Other new questions shown are on civil partnerships and identity, as well as ones for entry into the UK (for non-citizens) - that's it, so I really don't get how this is anymore intrusive - counting bedrooms is apparently wrong
Funny that, because counting rooms never has been - here is 2001:
Seems a pretty reasonable request to me - many people these days have 2 living rooms, and I don't really see how it's intrusive to ask a basic estate agent question
But the Mail (and apparently the Tories) seem to think the government are after all the details of your guests, snooping into who you sleep with every night of the year - despite this only referring to one night, as censuses are based on one single day, and you can even lie and just say you were home - the visitor question is I believe, so that you don't miss out if you're not at home, hence why they take your usual address
But don't let me witter on, here's the evidence, 2001:
The most intrusive census ever carried out!
I felt the article was particularly misleading (yes, more than usual) - but I can't find any real way to lodge an official complaint, as they seem to have covered themselves pretty well using implications and faux-outrage, with well placed, non-specific quotes - the bit I really object to is this (red = my words)
The 2011 survey will demand to know how many bedrooms there are in homes and detailed information about any 'overnight visitors'. [already standard practice]
....The Conservatives said the attempt to find out sleeping arrangements was particularly objectionable.
The demand for the number of bedrooms in each home, coupled with a requirement to give the name, sex, date of birth and address of any overnight visitors [again, already a standard question], amounted to 'bedroom snooping', they said.
The 2011 census will ask these things - but they are implying it's some sort of new thing, this is very misleading to me, but as they only imply it, is there really a case for complaint?
I guess that's what they pay their writers to do instead of actual writing...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
