Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

the '**** ' on Newsnight has probably mixed up the 2 'facts' of the USA market & UK market.

I don't think he mixed anything up. I just don't think he understood what he was saying.

This is what he (Tory MP David Morris, it would seem) said (verbatim):

"By 2030 it has been estimated that the gas bills will rise by 21% between now and 2030, now we've got shale gas it's going to be reduced down to 11%. That's halving the bill."

It was, I grant you, only a few seconds after Maitliss had remarked that gas bills in the US had halved but you'd have to be going some to think that the MP had mixed up the USA and the UK rather than considering the words that came out of his mouth.

[mockingbird_franklin]

So, they use terrorism laws to harass journalists.

They encourage Fracking and discourage renewables.

They arrest people who peacefully protest.

They kettle students and pensioners

They cut taxes for the rich and decrease benefits for the poor.

They appoint scientific advisors to look at things like Drugs & Bovine TB and then do the opposite of the advice from the experts.

They appoint private companies to assess the incapacitated for disability allowance

They penalise people in houses where there is nowhere for them to move to.

They address the deficit by cutting spending on infrastructure.

They get vans driving round to say "go home" immigrants

 

They're the most deceptive, loathsome, dishonest, incompetent, lying, self serving, odious Government we've ever had. And that takes some doing.

On the subject of private companies being involved with the benefit system, very little is made of the influence of Unum Insurance within the DWP, a company with a very checkered past in the USA who just happen to hawk unemployment protection insurance and the like, how can such a company with a vested interest in seeing the safety net of welfare cut be allowed to get anywhere near advising the DWP over benefits. They are in the process of removing pressure groups ability to raise serious issues about the damage policies are causing whilst allowing private companies to lobby for favorable legislation with reckless disregard of their duties as public servants and the oaths they swore. They claim underpants on expenses whilst cutting the benefits of those already on the bread line. The police are guided further and further away from keepers of the peace and protectors of the public and more and more towards becomming Gastapo for hire for corporate interests with little respect to the rights of the people. But the real sadness comes from seeing the total lack of real alternatives, the option is just a watered down version at best,

Edited August 21, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[drat01]

So, they use terrorism laws to harass journalists.

They encourage Fracking and discourage renewables.

They arrest people who peacefully protest.

They kettle students and pensioners

They cut taxes for the rich and decrease benefits for the poor.

They appoint scientific advisors to look at things like Drugs & Bovine TB and then do the opposite of the advice from the experts.

They appoint private companies to assess the incapacitated for disability allowance

They penalise people in houses where there is nowhere for them to move to.

They address the deficit by cutting spending on infrastructure.

They get vans driving round to say "go home" immigrants

 

They're the most deceptive, loathsome, dishonest, incompetent, lying, self serving, odious Government we've ever had. And that takes some doing.

Pete I will buy you (another) drink for that post alone - perfect

[mockingbird_franklin]

Seems Cameron's back is giving him gip.

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/atos-rates-cameron-fit-for-work-2013082178838

 

ATOS rates Cameron fit for work

21-08-13

DAVID Cameron has been assessed as ‘fit for work’ despite claims of crippling back pain.

 

The prime minister has hit out at assessment agency ATOS, claiming that his phenomenally bad back has made running the country ‘impossible’.

Cameron described how the constant nagging pain had left him unable to relax, stalk deer or grease up and bend over for lobbyists.

He said: “How can I possibly negotiate energy exports with Vladimir Putin when I can’t even get the saddle on, let alone get down on all fours like a good horsey?

“And less than 24 hours after I’m diagnosed the Obamas have got Nick Clegg drinking from my water dish and sleeping in my basket, almost like I never existed.

“On a more positive note, I’ve discovered they have old Keith Floyd cookery programmes on telly in the day.”

An ATOS spokesman said: “David Cameron was strapped to a gurney, only able to answer questions with tiny eye movements and communicated that he was in unbearable pain before soiling himself catastrophically.

“According to both government ‘recommendations’, we rated him fully fit for heavy physical work as a dockside stevedore, Zumba instructor or, at a push, prime minister.

“And besides, we’ve got video footage of him refereeing a polo match for a cash-in-hand payment last weekend.”

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

They're all turds. Westminster is not even a neat pile of solid turds. It is a puddle of runny, nutty, slightly lumpy turds.

[veloman]

Anyone have children who are moving on to study 'A' Levels ?  Here is a nice little move from our Conservative friends. My nipper is a teacher in Tamworth and is sweating on the top line for her pupil's GCSE results - which I think are imminent. So I asked if she taught 'A' Level ? 'No' was the reply , Our school no longer offers 'A' Levels; if a pupil wants to pursue 'A' Levels they must go to the local college" Anyone any experience of this;it has already resulted in redundancies at the school. Now, of course, it could be that the local College offers a much higher standard of teaching; but is there just a chance it is because F.E. staff are often on short term contracts and at lower rates than main stream teaching staff. Surely not ! ?   

[drat01]

Anyone have children who are moving on to study 'A' Levels ?  Here is a nice little move from our Conservative friends. My nipper is a teacher in Tamworth and is sweating on the top line for her pupil's GCSE results - which I think are imminent. So I asked if she taught 'A' Level ? 'No' was the reply , Our school no longer offers 'A' Levels; if a pupil wants to pursue 'A' Levels they must go to the local college" Anyone any experience of this;it has already resulted in redundancies at the school. Now, of course, it could be that the local College offers a much higher standard of teaching; but is there just a chance it is because F.E. staff are often on short term contracts and at lower rates than main stream teaching staff. Surely not ! ?   

 

Ahhh the good old policies of Michael (I'm a leading light and darling of the Tory party) Gove

 

Another perfect example, and another addition a very long list, of Tory party failures

[chrisp65]

yes my nipper is mid GCSE's and has just informed the choices made will now require a change of school if they are to be continued at A Level.

 

 

the nasty party

[veloman]

chrisp65 - that was exactly my (teacher) nipper's comment !  Many of the pupils don't want to change school but it appears such considerations are not important to this repulsive Government. 

[privateer]

Funny, the more things change the more they stay the seem. Or is it history repeating itself?

 

Due to the repulsive Labour Government's repulsive education policy in the 1970's, where they waged total war on the grammar school system, exactly the same thing happened.

 

Within the period of a pupil's secondary education, ex-grammar and grammar technical schools that had been offering 'A' levels were no longer doing so at all or were doing so with a much reduced subject range. A very large percentage of those pupils who managed to do 'A' levels during that period had to go to another establishment to do so. But that's OK, isn't it? It was a Labour initiative designed to create equality in education and choice for all.

 

It was a policy conceived in a fever of envy and resentment of perceived "privilege" by arseholes who, in wonderful, shameless irony were often the products of the system they despised. The bad concept was then hastily implemented by incompetent fools who couldn't have pulled it off even if it had been a good idea, actually well planned and used an appropriate transition period.

 

Ah, yes. The Tories, the "nasty" party, the "repulsive party". Same old tired refrain from supporters of a party who have screwed up this country every time they get a shot at it. Education, economy, foreign policy, public spending, you name it, they **** it up. The only thing they can be relied on is a never ending river of hypocrisy, bitterness, twisted envy and tirades of invective against those who disagree with their wrong-headed policies. Want to be cast as an evil '...ist' of some description, or a '...phobe' of some type? Just question their policies.

 

Any party that has duos in it like Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper and Harriet **** Harman and the utterly repellent Jack Dromey is wrong utterly rotten at the core. Equality is a funny thing amongst that bunch, too. Dromey's parliamentary seat was initially set as being women only until he was parachuted into it. Everything when it suits, eh?

[blandy]

You seem to be missing the point in that response, privateer - as far as I can tell it's not the "Same old tired refrain from supporters of a party who have screwed up this country". It's not Labour supporters writing those posts, in the main, anyway.

 

And even if it was, it wouldn't invalidate a single point made - no one has written "Labour wouldn't do what the tories have done", so the response "ah, but Labour are nasty, too" is just irrelevant. To be honest, they say so little and do so little, that I have no idea what they'd do, anyway.

 

 

[peterms]

Ah, yes. The Tories, the "nasty" party, the "repulsive party". Same old tired refrain from supporters of a party who have screwed up this country every time they get a shot at it. Education, economy, foreign policy, public spending, you name it, they **** it up.

 

 

The term Nasty Party was first used in October 2002 by Theresa May, the then Chairman of the Conservative Party, when she said of the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom: "There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party."

[Eames]

I'm going to try and keep this as apolitical as possible.

I work within education, although not as a teacher and my experience is the complete opposite of what is being described here.

Schools are falling over themselves to offer the widest range of courses they possibly can and if anything participation rates post 16 are much much higher this year than before. The change in the participation age to 17 has meant that FE colleges, schools and other providers are falling over themselves to get as many bums on seats as possible.

There are some courses that FE colleges are better placed to set teach than schools and vice versa. There are also many students that have hated every minute of school and can't wait to bail out into FE.

There is a much greater degree of co-ordination between schools now than ever before. Schools will work with each other and students may have to take courses across 1 or more centres to do the courses they want but if those centres are the specialists where is the harm in that.

As a point of order to Drat the current changes in post 16 education are as a result of Labour's Education and Skills Act 2008, but hey, why let facts spoil another arguement.

[Eames]

yes my nipper is mid GCSE's and has just informed the choices made will now require a change of school if they are to be continued at A Level.

 

 

the nasty party

This is most likely a school policy decision as opposed to one taken by Gove himself.

Speak to your LEA. Whatever flavour it may be.

[Risso]

Funny, the more things change the more they stay the seem. Or is it history repeating itself?

 

Due to the repulsive Labour Government's repulsive education policy in the 1970's, where they waged total war on the grammar school system, exactly the same thing happened.

 

Within the period of a pupil's secondary education, ex-grammar and grammar technical schools that had been offering 'A' levels were no longer doing so at all or were doing so with a much reduced subject range. A very large percentage of those pupils who managed to do 'A' levels during that period had to go to another establishment to do so. But that's OK, isn't it? It was a Labour initiative designed to create equality in education and choice for all.

 

It was a policy conceived in a fever of envy and resentment of perceived "privilege" by arseholes who, in wonderful, shameless irony were often the products of the system they despised. The bad concept was then hastily implemented by incompetent fools who couldn't have pulled it off even if it had been a good idea, actually well planned and used an appropriate transition period.

 

Ah, yes. The Tories, the "nasty" party, the "repulsive party". Same old tired refrain from supporters of a party who have screwed up this country every time they get a shot at it. Education, economy, foreign policy, public spending, you name it, they **** it up. The only thing they can be relied on is a never ending river of hypocrisy, bitterness, twisted envy and tirades of invective against those who disagree with their wrong-headed policies. Want to be cast as an evil '...ist' of some description, or a '...phobe' of some type? Just question their policies.

 

Any party that has duos in it like Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper and Harriet **** Harman and the utterly repellent Jack Dromey is wrong utterly rotten at the core. Equality is a funny thing amongst that bunch, too. Dromey's parliamentary seat was initially set as being women only until he was parachuted into it. Everything when it suits, eh?

 

 

Spot on, bang on the money.  I can name dozens of schools going back 30 years that don't offer A Levels.  How this make one party more repulsive than the other is beyond me.

[peterms]

 

MPs criticised for taking extra public money so children can stay over

Bedroom tax MPs claim child housing subsidy

 

MPs have been labelled hypocritical for using £64,000 of taxpayers’ money to subsidise their children’s visits to their second homes after voting for the bedroom tax.

 

Under the bedroom tax more than 600,000 social tenants with one or more spare rooms must either move or pay an average £14-a-week penalty.

 

A single parent who is not a child’s main carer will not receive extra housing benefit to cover the cost of a spare bedroom to allow the child to stay overnight.

 

But MPs who want their children to visit their London residence can claim extra money from their accommodation allowance to cover the costs of accommodating them, providing the child ‘routinely resides’ with them.

 

What qualifies as ‘routinely residing’ is up to the MP’s discretion, so they will still be eligible for the extra money if their children visit just once a month, under rules laid down by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

 

The scheme was branded as the ‘ultimate hypocrisy’ by Lucy Ferman, project manager for Placeshapers - an alliance of 100 housing associations.

 

In the 2011/12 financial year, 29 MPs who voted for the bedroom tax claimed additional expenses for the cost of dependants over and above the standard £20,100 accommodation allowance they were entitled to, costing the taxpayer £63,819.

 

In the same period, a further 20 who did not vote for the legislation claimed £36,864.

 

Conservative MP Nigel Adams, who accused the BBC of having a ‘preconceived agenda’ over its bedroom tax coverage, claimed £6,735 for costs related to dependants. He did not comment.

 

Climate change minister Greg Barker claimed an extra £3,313 for costs related to his dependants. His office said the claims were ‘fully compliant with IPSA rules’.

 

But the Northern Housing Consortium said MPs should consider whether the guidelines were still ‘right and proper’ in light of the bedroom tax policy - adding tenants would be ‘upset and angry’ that MPs did not face the same restrictions as them.

 

Cross-bench peer Lord Richard Best said it was important that MPs had the space for their children to visit. ‘What we object to is that other people don’t. They have a penalty for having space.’

 

In numbers: MPs’ claims

£63,819

total amount claimed by pro-bedroom tax MPs for their dependants

£36,864

total amount claimed by anti-bedroom tax MPs for their dependants

£2,425

the extra allowance MPs can claim per dependant

£20,100

the amount MPs can claim for accommodation in London without a registered dependant

What the sector thinks

‘There’s one law for people who make the law and there’s one law for those who get hit by it, there’s no doubt about it.’

Paul Nicolson, founder, Taxpayers Against Poverty

‘Our tenants will find it hard to swallow that MPs with dependents are able to have their accommodation limit increased.’

Ronny Harris, assistant chief executive, Coast & Country

‘This is not comparing apples with apples. I’m not asking for subsidy for my home. This is just a second home which I require for doing my job.’

Anonymous Conservative MP

 

Here.

[bickster]

I honestly can't see the problem with - 16 - 18 year olds going to a new school. What on earth is the issue with it?

Their needs are much different to the rest of the kids in a school. They need a different environment and that is recognised by the fact that most VIth Forms are totally separate units from the main school and always have been, with different rules etc. I'd have thought it was about time these kids learned to travel a bit further on a daily basis. I'd also imagine that it is a much improved range of A levels that could be taught at dedicated VIth form that within the confines of a traditional school.

Can't see a problem with that one tbh

[veloman]

I honestly can't see the problem with - 16 - 18 year olds going to a new school. What on earth is the issue with it?

 

Indeed; I take that point but....children may have different attitudes to this and feel more 'comfortable' at their present school and thus achieve better results; all subjective I realise. I had this situation with my own; I wanted her to go to a 6th Form College within another local school because it had better results, possibly by pushing the children harder. As it happens, she achieved the grades for Leicester but if she had gone to the other place she may have got into Nottingham - which is where she really wanted to go. ('cos it was near Rock City !!!!) 

Eames - No point contacting the LEA I don't think - her school is now an Academy and I don't think the LEA has a say - not certain about that though. Best of luck on your bike ride btw - CNP bars are the way forward.

This was not really intended to be blatantly political but it does strike me that teachers have become the new miners and are in danger of being treated in the same way - hence  'repulsive'.

[StefanAVFC]

Anyone have children who are moving on to study 'A' Levels ?  Here is a nice little move from our Conservative friends. My nipper is a teacher in Tamworth and is sweating on the top line for her pupil's GCSE results - which I think are imminent. So I asked if she taught 'A' Level ? 'No' was the reply , Our school no longer offers 'A' Levels; if a pupil wants to pursue 'A' Levels they must go to the local college" Anyone any experience of this;it has already resulted in redundancies at the school. Now, of course, it could be that the local College offers a much higher standard of teaching; but is there just a chance it is because F.E. staff are often on short term contracts and at lower rates than main stream teaching staff. Surely not ! ?   

 

Didn't this happen at QEMS/Rawlett a while ago? I had friends at those schools when I was doing my A levels and they had to walk between each schools daily (the schools offered half the A level subjects each)

[bickster]

Indeed; I take that point but....children may have different attitudes to this and feel more 'comfortable' at their present school and thus achieve better results

Kids of this age need to be taken out of their comfort zone and if all their mates had to leave the school too, they'd soon get on with it and be genuinely be excited by the change