Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

On the Woolas thing, it's quite a bizarre response.

I do understand the 'defend one's brother' idea but I think they fail to defend the interests of the electorate and that should be of more import, surely?

But if they believe that there is a case to be taken to appeal and the various next levels then fair enough its for them to help out.

Luckily in this country we do have various rights of appeal and long may that continue.

One of the comments on the article sums it up nicely:

Mr Woolas, you have been found guilty by high court judges in a properly and lawfully formed election court de jour of lying and of capitalising on your deliberate and willful raising of racial tensions. You have no lawful grounds for judicial review of this judgement, only leave to appeal in the appeal courts.

The appeal courts cannot overturn the annulment of the election result, they can only allow your right to stand for public office. If labour does not take you back, then you will only be able to stand as an independent against labour, splitting the vote, IF you win an appeal (which you have not even applied for)

You are a liar and have been found guilty of such.

The ideals of democratic elections as a "fair fight" are long since gone. Politicians and their media allies (from both sides) basically lie and tell what they know will cause maximum damage to their opponents with little respect for the electorate.

Do they all tell lies about there opponents? I only ask because the last case of this type was 99 years ago so frankly I call bull shit.

However in the spirit of telling the truth Woolas is a bigotted tosser who stirred up racial tension and told lies about his opponent to try and win his seat. Labour MP's support him in this and I think that's a perfect anaology for their own party.

I still think that there will be other "cases" that come to light.

Why would you think this, don't you reckon the relevant victim of such lies might have noticed during the election campaign itself?

[snowychap]

On the Woolas thing, it's quite a bizarre response.

I do understand the 'defend one's brother' idea but I think they fail to defend the interests of the electorate and that should be of more import, surely?

I think it's less about the principles of the issue than about in-groups within the party.

Woolas has from time immemorial been a prime operator of cliques, factions, alliances, several of which have been delighted to see fellow members of the party expelled for having views which were more akin to the 1945 government than the ba-ba Blairites who took over the party. Electoral law, still less the good of the electorate or the integrity of the system, seem to come a poor second to keeping in place a man who has only ever had one calling, that of careerist. Or so some would say. I'm sure they're wrong, mind.

I think VT has become a hotbed of knowledge about Mr Woolas.

Joanna Lumley would have benefitted from becoming a member of our site (and we would doubtless have benefitted, too).

[chrisp65]

On the Woolas thing, it's quite a bizarre response.

I do understand the 'defend one's brother' idea but I think they fail to defend the interests of the electorate and that should be of more import, surely?

Some of them have learnt nothing, they still think it's more important to close ranks and stand by a convicted election cheat and liar as he's 'one of them'. It beggars belief they cannot see that they've almost all been caught with their hands in the till, they are almost universally capable of going back on election pledges, then one has been caught lying yet they are concerned the judiciary can over rule a fraudulently achieved election result! FFS!

When will we have 'none of the above' on the voting slips?

[snowychap]

Steve Webb = deceitful canute.

I wonder how much that cost? Is a referendum on AV worth it?

[drat01]

Ian, I really think that you are conflating two issues.

I understand the temptation to do so but I really think that knowingly condoning the promotion of untruths about another candidate's personal character is a slightly different thing than partisan cobblers.

Neither are good, I'll agree, but the former is even more appalling than the latter.

To conflate the two probably distracts from the equally serious (or even more serious overall) impact of the media, corporations, &c.

I certainly wouldn't deny Woolas the proper right of appeal (has he gone to the Court of Appeal in the end or is it another attempt at a judicial review) but the vehemence of the brotherly love will look more than stupid, it will look 'institutionally' (though I don't really like that term) corrupt. I think that's a mistake.

I personally think that Woolas's campaign was disgraceful. It wasn't however unique (ironically, there are lots of reports of LibDem campaigns over the past decade or so of being really bad).

I've never seen it as an adequate defence for someone to point to someone else in the playground and say, " Them's as bad as me."

On reading back my post I can see that it does look like that and apologies for that confusion. But I do suspect that the way politics is going, or even is there already, does just that. Attacks on people and ideas seems to be the norm now. The whole mucky mess that is electioneering is not just the leaflets and quotes given in the run up to an election, its via all sorts of things such as blogs, TV interviews, media comments, even the HOP under the umbrella of debate.

I'm actually agreeing with your stance on where it should be, and again not just for MP's but for all elected and politically employed people. The trouble is I don't think we can ever get there again, there are far too many people who have invested big in terms of money and time and they want their return

I remember a lie that Cameron told, and this falls into the electioneering rather than personal attack, about how he wanted to get away from "punch and judy" politics. Only for him to then proceed on probably the worst instances of that type of political behaviour that we have seen in this country, and we see it more and more.

As for Woolas, TBH I think he is tomorrow's chip paper, and its a sign of how much the Tory led media want to deflect from the constant barrage of bad and damning news against "their lot" that they are trying to make this into such a massive issue. I suspect that 99% of the population are more concerned about the economic cuts and the forthcoming juggernaut of VAT increases and job losses than what 1 MP did.

[drat01]

Easily, Ian. You bang on about the Tory relationship with Murdoch as if this was somenew plitical phenomenon, yet said nothing about his monthly invitation to chat with Blair in No 10 for a decade. I'm guessing becuase at that point he supported 'your' side.

If you'd been banging on about it at the time then I'd say fair one for doing so now. You weren't though, so the faux outrage directed at Murdoch changing horses seems hypocritical to say the least.

Jon what absolute and utter bollox. The relationship that Murdoch is now having with Cameron especially is very concerning on many fronts, as well you know. The whole BSKYB and the attacks on the BBC's place in the UK society are behind a lot of what his "empire" is up to now. Cameron is supposed to be clever in the whole marketing strategy, so why then does he allow a private meeting at the tax payers expense (chequers meeting have to be paid for) with someone who is looking to gain that power? The internet is littered with instances showing that Cameron is being influenced by Murdoch in a very unhealthy way.

You keep making out as though I was some sort of supporter of Murdoch while he backed Labour. Where did I do that please? I understand the power that the bloke has and can understand why political parties prefer to have him on their side, that is not agreeing with his principles though, nor is it any sort of party support. If you get a few minutes actually read, without your Tory hat on, the whole thing about what the Murdoch organisation is doing now and then get that hat back on you used to wear about civil liberty and influence and possibly comment then. at the moment all I can see is you objecting because it's an attack on the Tory party that you so passionately support

[drat01]

Do they all tell lies about there opponents? I only ask because the last case of this type was 99 years ago so frankly I call bull shit.

However in the spirit of telling the truth Woolas is a bigotted tosser who stirred up racial tension and told lies about his opponent to try and win his seat. Labour MP's support him in this and I think that's a perfect anaology for their own party.

Jon your "outrage" is obviously borne more out of your hatred for Labour than what has happened here. Are you honestly saying that lies do not happen? Are you honestly saying that political electioneering and comment is 100% squeaky clean and 100% truthful?

Interesting that you try and deflect away from the issue and tar the whole Labour party movement with some brush, whilst totally ignoring the many many cases that are reported about racial bigotry and xenophobia (and homophobia etc) that occur across many parts of the political world.

Shame really

[peterms]

Latest on the assault on claimants: Government spends a lot of money testing manufacturers' claims to be able to detect "benefit cheats" electronically, only to find the manufacturers were, er, not quite telling the truth, but we, that is you, I, and everyone else, have paid the manufacturers to find this out.

Government abandons lie detector tests for catching benefit cheats

Plans to use VRA lie detector software to identify benefit cheats have been scrapped after trials suggest it is unreliable

The government has dropped plans to introduce controversial lie detector tests to catch benefit fraudsters after trials found that the technology is not sufficiently reliable.

The Department for Work and Pensions has given up on "voice risk analysis" (VRA) software after spending £2.16m on trials to assess whether the technology can identify people who are trying to fiddle the system when it eavesdrops on their telephone calls to benefit offices.

Plans to install lie detectors were hailed as a vote-winning move to get tough on benefit cheats when they were unveiled by the former prime minister, Gordon Brown, on the eve of the Queen's speech in December 2008. Ministers hoped the technology would make the benefits system more efficient and less costly.

VRA is meant to detect signs of stress in a caller's voice by analysing short snippets of speech, but critics say the system is not powerful enough to distinguish cheats from honest callers.

In 23 pilot studies, local authorities used the lie detector system to analyse phone calls from people applying for, or updating existing claims for housing benefit, council tax, income support and jobseeker's allowance. The technology was judged a success in only five of the trials.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed that the technology was being dropped now the trials had ended. "We have got the analysis back and have been going through whether it works when applied to the benefits system. This is the first time it has been used in the benefits system and the decision is that it is not very good value for money," she said.

The department organised two groups of trials. The first, in 2008, cost £460,000 and involved six local authorities and the department's executive agency, Jobcentre Plus. The second phase trial was expanded to 24 local authorities at a cost of £1.7m. Information from 45,000 calls was included in the evaluation, the department said.

Nine local authorities trialled the lie detector on calls about new benefit claims. Of these, only three said it worked well enough to highlight risky callers without raising too many false alarms. Of 12 local authorities who used VRA to spot cheats during benefit reviews, only one judged the trial to have been a success. Two local authorities tested VRA on callers who were reporting changes in their personal circumstances, with one reporting the trial as successful.

Voice risk analysis has been mired in controversy since scientists raised doubts over the technology soon after it reached the market. In 2007, two Swedish researchers, Anders Eriksson and Francisco Lacerda, published their own analysis of VRA in the International Journal of Speech Language and Law. They found no scientific evidence to support claims for the device made by the manufacturer, an Israeli company called Nemesysco.

Eriksson and Lacerda went on to say the software was "at the astrology end of the validity spectrum". Following complaints from Nemesysco's founder, the article was withdrawn from the website of the journal's publisher, Equinox Publishing and the authors were threatened with legal action by the company.

Professor Lacerda, who is head of phonetics at Stockholm University, told the Guardian he welcomed the government's decision to drop the technology.

"I praise the Department of Work and Pensions for the serious investigation they have done, which reinforces the strength of their decision. My only surprise is that it didn't come earlier. There is no basis for the device at all, so I would be surprised if they had reached another conclusion," he said.

"The problem with this device is that it is not even plausible to begin with. Had the department asked scientists in the UK they would probably have been advised not to bet on it, so this is a very expensive way of reaching an obvious conclusion," Lacerda added.

Under the "one strike and you're out" proposals put forward by Gordon Brown in 2008, people stood to lose their benefits for a month if caught out by lie detector tests. In a letter to Tracey Brown, director of Sense about Science, the minister for welfare reform, Lord Freud, confirmed that the department "has now discontinued interest in VRA".

Milan Vjestica, a consultant speaking for DigiLog, a Buckinghamshire-based company licensed to sell VRA in the UK, said: "The Department for Work and Pensions have not said that it doesn't work. They have said that local authorities can, as part of their own fraud and error strategies, use VRA amongst other tools.

"The concerns that some scientists have raised have been strongly contested by Nemesysco. This was one example of scientists saying in their opinion it didn't work. It's not like there is a whole host of people saying it doesn't work."

So we pay companies to find out whether the claims they make are correct? THat's a new one on me. I rather thought we expected them to be able to prove their claims, before paying them.

Yet when it comes to claimants, we seem to operate from a basis of disbelief. They are claiming, so they are probably lying, and trying to cheat us.

And this from the people who brought you "Expenses Claims: nothing is quite what it seems".

As a set of moral values, this slides off the scale beyond despicable, beyond sickening, into the zone where words fail.

[snowychap]

On reading back my post I can see that it does look like that and apologies for that confusion. But I do suspect that the way politics is going, or even is there already, does just that. Attacks on people and ideas seems to be the norm now. The whole mucky mess that is electioneering is not just the leaflets and quotes given in the run up to an election, its via all sorts of things such as blogs, TV interviews, media comments, even the HOP under the umbrella of debate.

I'm actually agreeing with your stance on where it should be, and again not just for MP's but for all elected and politically employed people. The trouble is I don't think we can ever get there again, there are far too many people who have invested big in terms of money and time and they want their return

I remember a lie that Cameron told, and this falls into the electioneering rather than personal attack, about how he wanted to get away from "punch and judy" politics. Only for him to then proceed on probably the worst instances of that type of political behaviour that we have seen in this country, and we see it more and more.

As for Woolas, TBH I think he is tomorrow's chip paper, and its a sign of how much the Tory led media want to deflect from the constant barrage of bad and damning news against "their lot" that they are trying to make this into such a massive issue. I suspect that 99% of the population are more concerned about the economic cuts and the forthcoming juggernaut of VAT increases and job losses than what 1 MP did.

Fair enough. I do despair slightly when people accept the inevitability of the degradation of political debate, campaign, &c.

Perhaps we can't roll back, I'm not so sure and I think we should still try.

Woolas v the economic situation? Yes the latter is much more important to the majority of people: I'm not sure that ought to dilute the importance of the situation around the Woolas affair (and I hope it doesn't for the fact that it might and ought to have a significant effect upon the campaigns of others).

On Ireland:

'Quantitative cheesing'? (That's Newsnight for you)

[bickster]

Steve Webb = deceitful canute.

I wonder how much that cost? Is a referendum on AV worth it?

What has the my former Captain on the Dartmouth High School Quiz Team done now?

[peterms]

Unemployment high and rising?

Demand at atrociously low level?

UK trade gap at record level?

Cutting education, capital investment and any other long-term solutions?

Don't know the difference between budget deficits and the end of the world?

No idea how you got here, where you want to go, or how to get there?

Can't find your bum in the dark using both hands?

Never mind! Have another drink! After all, you're not paying for it!

[snowychap]

Steve Webb = deceitful canute.

I wonder how much that cost? Is a referendum on AV worth it?

What has the my former Captain on the Dartmouth High School Quiz Team done now?

Was he?

I think, having watched all but about half an hour of today's debate, he was not quite truthful in his closing remarks on the debate (and he also specifically refused to engage in an intervention). I'll wait until tomorrow and I can check Hansard before I'm sure.

All quite remarkable stuff considering the position (within the Lib Dems) that he is supposed to come from.

One quick thing, though, is that he seemed to be keen to continue the Lord Fraud point about 'private rents have decreased 5% over the same point that LHA has increased by 3%'. I haven't yet seen the data that justifies this (the DWP don't seem to have released the data only confirmed the truth of Fraud's comment) and that is without pointing out that changes in LHA follow by necessity changes in the private rental market (as they are the median rate, currently, of the private rental sector excluding housing benefit supported rentals).

[bickster]

Certainly was, same year in school and everything

[Awol]

Never mind! Have another drink! After all, you're not paying for it!

Indeed, the Chinese Government are and telling them to stick their hospitality would greatly assist their attempts to address the

UK trade gap

Seems like a silly thing to get steamed up about when there is so much they really do need taking to task for.

[P3te]

Unemployment high and rising?

Demand at atrociously low level?

UK trade gap at record level?

Cutting education, capital investment and any other long-term solutions?

Don't know the difference between budget deficits and the end of the world?

No idea how you got here, where you want to go, or how to get there?

Can't find your bum in the dark using both hands?

Never mind! Have another drink! After all, you're not paying for it!

could be worse

take a look to your west - ireland will be bankrupt soon

[Awol]

I worry that QE is like a one off hit, but if you keep doing it, then it doesn't work. I think this is Awol's point, and I agree. Yes, do it once, maybe twice, but after that any argument for doing it again is (IMO) from what I've read and tried to understand, daft, as it's counter productive.

It appears that the Chinese agree with you..

Leading Chinese credit rating agency downgrades USA government bonds

One of China’s leading credit rating agencies has downgraded United States of America government debt in response to what it sees as deliberate devaluation of the dollar by quantitative easing and other means.

If China, now the second biggest economy in the world, stops buying US government bonds this could have a very negative effect on the global recovery. The Dagong Global Credit Rating Company analysis is highly critical of American attempts to borrow their way out of debt. It criticises competitive currency devaluation and predicts a “long-term recession”.

Dagong Global Credit says: “In order to rescue the national crisis, the US government resorted to the extreme economic policy of depreciating the U.S. dollar at all costs and this fully exposes the deep-rooted problem in the development and the management model of national economy.

“It would be difficult for the U.S. to find the correct path to revive the US economy should the US government fail to understand the source of the credit crunch and the development law of a modern credit economy, and stick to the mindset of traditional economic management model, which indicates that the US economic and social development will enter a long-term recession phase.”

The analysis concludes: “The potential overall crisis in the world resulting from the US dollar depreciation will increase the uncertainty of the U.S. economic recovery. Under the circumstances that none of the economic factors influencing the U.S. economy has turned better explicitly it is possible that the US will continue to expand the use of its loose monetary policy, damaging the interests the creditors.

“Therefore, given the current situation, the United States may face much unpredictable risks in solvency in the coming one to two years. Accordingly, Dagong assigns negative outlook on both local and foreign currency sovereign credit ratings of the United States.”

The bombshell follows fears about the outlook for bondholders expressed closer to home by fund managers, including the American giant Merrill Lynch. Max King, global investment strategist at Investec Asset Management, who passed the Chinese note to me said: “Dagong is well respected as an independent credit rating agency which takes a more conservative view than better-known American credit rating agencies.

“It is interesting to see what people with money outside the American sphere of influence think. Until recently, the US had been regarded as beyond reproach but now independent analysts say the position is deteriorating and likely to deteriorate further.

Worth noting that this is based on where the US is now, before the anticipated extension of QE by the Fed and subsequent dollar devaluation. This pretty much illustrates the argument I've been trying to make about the dangers of too much QE and it's impact on a country's external investors.

[Jon]

Unemployment high and rising?

Demand at atrociously low level?

UK trade gap at record level?

Cutting education, capital investment and any other long-term solutions?

Don't know the difference between budget deficits and the end of the world?

No idea how you got here, where you want to go, or how to get there?

Can't find your bum in the dark using both hands?

Never mind! Have another drink! After all, you're not paying for it!

It pains me to see The Cable Guy lining up alongside these guys. It makes me sad.

[TrentVilla]

It pains me to see The Cable Guy lining up alongside these guys. It makes me sad.

He is one of them now although Gove still thinks he is the butler.

Is it me or does Cable look a little like Osbourne's dad in that pic?

[Gringo]

Sometimes I don't approve of things.

If that is the case I will tend to voice my disapproval.

If I don't then people may assume I am offering/have offered tacit approval.

Even more so when it's something I strongly or vehemently disapprove of.

[snowychap]

I worry that QE is like a one off hit, but if you keep doing it, then it doesn't work. I think this is Awol's point, and I agree. Yes, do it once, maybe twice, but after that any argument for doing it again is (IMO) from what I've read and tried to understand, daft, as it's counter productive.

It appears that the Chinese agree with you..

The Chinese trying to take the high ground over currency devaluation? That's really having a laugh.