Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Richard]

Yes I find it disgusting that you are happy with people loosing their jobs. You don't think its bad news so stop hiding the fact that you are OK with it.

Did you mist the bit of his post where he said he wasn't happy that people are losing their jobs on purpose Ian?

I have to laugh at your constant trotting out of the country being "skint", a total buy in on the pre election stuff from Gideon.

And the comment from Laim Byrne that there was no money left, or was he fooled too?

[TrentVilla]

And the comment from Laim Byrne that there was no money left, or was he fooled too?

You do realise that was a joke (in poor taste granted) rather than an audited set of accounts don't you?

[Awol]

And the comment from Laim Byrne that there was no money left, or was he fooled too?

You do realise that was a joke (in poor taste granted) rather than an audited set of accounts don't you?

Dark humour certainly, but nevertheless true. The coalition's commitment to these "savage cuts" is the one thing that may keep the markets off Sterling when they finished trashing the eurozone. We may get lucky, we may not, but without them we'd be destined for an IMF bailout (and at least 25% cuts in every department) for sure.

[drat01]

You say its true Jon, but that is just opinion on your part and those that support the present Gvmt.

As Ash (Trent) rightly says the current Gvmt and its supporters often try and make something more from what was a joke, which is pretty pathetic really. I'm glad to see the "IMF card" being played again, it's somewhat like the race card in those debates. There is little if any evidence of it happening but the typical scare to prove tactic is the one that is used as a justification for the cuts. No doubt next we will hear the "Labour - No cuts" line, again that was never the case, but something often trotted out to try and deflect and justify these terrible attacks that the Gvmt are inflicting on those they see as opponents. Interesting the lack of defence for the increased budgets in Tory held councils, but TBH only to be expected really.

But this is old ground and one that the Gvmt supporters especially will keep spouting when challenged, with little more than scare tactics, and considering the mods requests from above, I am happy to leave to others to debate

On a different issue it was very interesting to see the lack of comment about the Millions that were spent - primarily from donors now benefiting no doubt - by the Tory party in the run up to the election far more than either Labour or the Lib Dem's but even with that extra tax avoidance funded millions they failed in getting a majority. There have been question raised again in the HOL about political funding but very little seems to be happening, nor does there seem to be much being pushed on favours for that funding, I suppose voting against paymasters is difficult - as we saw in the WC vote

the Indy has a good little article re this - Tory funding more than all opponents put together

How much does it cost to win a vote? £1.54 if it's for the Tories

The Conservatives outspent all the other parties combined on this year's general election, figures released by the Electoral Commission reveal.

The biggest change from the previous election was the dramatic depletion of the Labour campaign's war chest. It spent just over £8m on the three month campaign, less than half the £16.7m spent by the Tories. The figure for the Liberal Democrats was £4.8m, the most they have ever spent.

The Conservatives were so rich that one day they spent £5,532 projecting a picture of David Cameron onto London's Battersea Power Station.

They also invested thousands of pounds in ideas that were dropped before the public had even heard about them. M&S Saatchi billed them £3,466 for a poster to warn the public about the pitfalls of a hung Parliament.

There were also bills of more than £2,500 for ideas featuring a "double-headed donkey" – a reference to a famous cartoon by David Low ridiculing the Coalition Government of 1922.

The figures also reveal the problems Labour had attracting wealthy donors after Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as leader. In 2005 they were in a position to splash out £18m.

Among the items listed on the Tory campaign's returns are £140,000 worth of prizes for fund-raising auctions donated by the restaurateur Richard Caring, who was previously a Labour donor.

One embarrassment for Labour, which the Tories were quick to point out yesterday, is that bills for more than £35,000 for the use of ministerial cars during the campaign still have not been paid, after the legal deadline has passed.

But Labour countered that it was not their fault. A source at the party's HQ said civil servants sent the bill to Downing Street – apparently forgetting that Labour is no longer in power – so the invoices did not reach Labour until the deadline had been missed.

But at least the Labour Party can claim to have got better value for money, because each vote they gathered cost them an average of 93p, whereas the high-spending Tories gathered only one vote for every £1.54 they spent. The Lib Dems did even better, spending 70p per vote gained.

One item that did not go to waste was the £4,524 they spent on a bespoke pair of 5ft-high boots, which were used for a photo shoot that purported to show Gordon Brown crushing the economic recovery.

They also spent £188 on a mask of Tony Blair and more than £600 on Gordon Brown masks.

The Labour Party's campaign returns reveal that David Prescott, son of the former Deputy Prime Minister, was paid £17,500 in consultancy fees – £250 a day – for accompanying his father around the country on the "Go Fourth" campaign. This was on top of hotel bills and other costs.

Labour spent more than £1,600 on gas and inflator equipment for campaign balloons and £351 on six boxes of 60 bars of rock with the campaign slogan "A Future Fair for All" running through them.

Another £360 went on hiring a Mercedes S class limousine for a day for Alastair Campbell, who was also put up at Labour's expense for one night in a £340 hotel room. Everyone else in the Labour campaign team, apart from Gordon Brown, had to settle for a £118-a-night room that night.

One of the biggest items of expenditure for the Liberal Democrats was the £253,000 they were charged for private flights for Nick Clegg, Vice Cable and other senior party members. Maintaining Mr Clegg's website during the campaign cost more than £10,000.

Of the other parties, the biggest roller by far was the UK Independence Party, which spent £732,780 but won no seats. The Green Party invested £325,425, most of which went on the successful campaign to see Caroline Lucas elected as the first Green MP. The Scottish National Party spent £315,776, Plaid Cymru £144,933 and the BNP £29,460.

I wonder if the WC will be so forthcoming about expenses

Next week we will see the end of the LibDems as a credible party, IMO, with the student fees voting issue. Clegg cannot remain in charge and Cable is proving to be no better than Clegg for lies and deceit. There is a lot of unrest it seems from the grass roots and it will take just one challenger to their leadership for it to fall like a house of cards. The interesting thing then would be how Cameron, Hague and Osborne (the Thatcher kids :-) ) would react without the obvious benefit of being able to pass blame on to the LibDems. Would they have to show they are no lightweight, would they have to try and justify their actions?

[Awol]

I'm glad to see the "IMF card" being played again, it's somewhat like the race card in those debates. There is little if any evidence of it happening but the typical scare to prove tactic is the one that is used as a justification for the cuts.

If you put aside the politics and look objectively at the economic situation now and the way it is likely to develop then IMF intervention is still a highly possible outcome. Without large cuts in public spending to ensure market confidence that we are getting the deficit under control we'd have gone down as surely as the PIGS.

No doubt next we will hear the "Labour - No cuts" line, again that was never the case, but something often trotted out to try and deflect and justify these terrible attacks that the Gvmt are inflicting on those they see as opponents.

Not from me, in a post to you on the last page I highlighted that Labour also planned massive spending cuts and if Brown had got in as PM they would have been carried out. Would you have been calling them "terrible attacks" then?

[tonyh29]

primarily from donors now benefiting no doubt

you roll the dice, and scored a 5 .. you move your cloth cap ( we are playing the Up North version of Monopoly rather than the London one with the Top hat) forward 5 places and land on the Chance square ..you pick up a card ....maybe you've won first prize in a Whippet racing competition , you're hoping beyond all expectation you've won a bath to keep your coal in , maybe your pigeon has won first prize in a pigeon race

you turn the card

Bugger .. it's the damn Hypocrisy card again

Disclaimer - the above post may require a small pinch of humour

[snowychap]

Phil Woolas loses bid to overturn election court ban

Phil Woolas has lost his bid to overturn an election court's ruling that stripped him of his Commons seat and barred him from politics.

He narrowly won his Oldham East and Saddleworth seat in May but the result was declared void by an election court over his conduct in the campaign.

He sought a judicial review, but three High Court judges upheld the ruling.

...more on link

and

MPs' expenses: David Chaytor pleads guilty to charges

Former Labour MP David Chaytor has pleaded guilty to three charges relating to his expenses claims.

Mr Chaytor, 61, the former MP for Bury North, was charged with false accounting under the Theft Act.

He stood down as an MP at the general election after stories about his expenses claims emerged in the press.

He changed his plea ahead of a trial which was due to start on Monday. He was the first Parliamentarian due to face trial over his expenses.

...more on link

[Richard]

Interesting the lack of defence for the increased budgets in Tory held councils, but TBH only to be expected really.

Any chance you could clarify, not even directly to me but in a generic way, what you mean here please.

[TrentVilla]

So what sort of punishment is Chaytor looking at when found guilty?

[Awol]

So what sort of punishment is Chaytor looking at when found guilty?

Jail, where every MP who has defrauded the taxpayer belongs.

[snowychap]

So what sort of punishment is Chaytor looking at when found guilty?

It'll be interesting.

His defence seem to be stressing that there has been no loss to the public purse (as monies have been returned) and the CPS that there is a breach of trust.

If the latter wills out then I suppose a custodial sentence but the guidelines seem to suggest up to 21 months for the level of dosh involved (which would automatically be halved, wouldn't it for a guilty plea?).

My guess? Something suspended.

[TrentVilla]

I agree Awol but then think Snowy is likely right, personally I don't see that it should make a difference if he has paid it back or not. Fraud it fraud and this was fraud.

[markavfc40]

Interesting the lack of defence for the increased budgets in Tory held councils, but TBH only to be expected really.

Any chance you could clarify, not even directly to me but in a generic way, what you mean here please.

I presume he is on about this which he posted a couple of pages back:

Council cuts: the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer

Quote:

Communities secretary Eric Pickles is desperately trying to head off a political row after analysis shows the most deprived areas will suffer most from local authority cuts - while the richest areas will benefit

Here's an extraordinary story. It appears that not only are councils in the most deprived parts of England (generally Labour run) going to be hit hardest and fastest by local government spending cuts, but that the largely Tory-run authorities in some of the very wealthiest parts of the country may even find themselves better off.

Or put another way: the likes of Liverpool, Burnley and Hartlepool (to name but three) face a reduction in their budget of almost a third as result of the comprehensive spending review (CSR), while the leafy shires of Tunbridge Wells and West Oxfordshire will see their budget increase by over a third over the same period.

So staggering is the imbalance, according to the Local Government Chronicle (LGC), that the normally implacable communities secretary Eric Pickles - who delivered his department cuts package to the Treasury in September with such gusto - has been forced to go back to the Treasury to plead for extra money to mitigate the impact on the poorest areas. According to LGC, he has been unsucccesful.

LGC chief reporter Allister Hayman's report (which is sadly behind a paywall) claims:

• Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) officials have described the situation as "desperate" and are exploring ways of tearing up their CSR settlement and re-profiling the DCLG budget. This would require Treasury approval.

• Cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell has commissioned a review into the effects of the spending review cuts on employment levels in different parts of the country, "a tacit acknowledgement that public sector cuts could lead to higher unemployment in very deprived areas".

• Some northern metropolitan councils have warned that the "frontloading" of the cuts means they will not be able to set a legal budget next year if finance directors believe the proposed cost savings are unachievable. Councils say they are getting no steer from DCLG, and are being kept in the dark.

The revelation clearly unravels both the government's general commitment to fairness and its specific CSR promise to dampen the impact of cuts on the poorest areas. LGC quotes Mike Bennett, assistant director general of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives & Senior Managers (Solace) sas saying:

"In its spending review framework the government committed itself to limiting the impact of reductions on areas heavily dependent on the public sector. It is not, therefore, a political observation to suggest that to meet its stated commitment to fairness the government will need to apply the same logic to the local government settlement."

But the consequences nonethelss, say some commentators, will be bitterly political row. Reports LGC:

"Hugh Grover, London Councils' director of fair funding, said that to reconcile the extremes produced by the spending review would require 'politically difficult' choices of taking big cuts out of the grant to councils at the top end - largely Conservative-led councils in the south-east. 'If some authorities see that they are potentially forgoing 37% increases they will be leaping about saying they've been unfairly penalised. The politics is going to be awful,' he said."

DCLG it seems, is playing a straight bat. LGC quotes a spokesperson:

"The local government finance settlement is due shortly and will be announced in a statement to Parliament. Any commentary ahead of formal publication is pure speculation."

Here's LGC's table of selected winners and losers:

Impact of CSR cuts on selected councils

In brackets = 2007 Indices of Multiple Deprivation Rank, where 1= most deprived and 354= least deprived.

25-37% increase:

South Cambridgeshire DC (350); West Oxfordshire DC (349); Tunbridge Wells DC (273); Uttlesford DC (347); Reigate & Banstead DC (322); Dartford DC (186);Harborough DC (344)

25-29% reduction:

Burnley BC (21); Bolsover DC (55); South Tyneside MBC (3Cool; Hartlepool BC (23); Blackburn with Darwen BC (17); Copeland BC (7Cool; Liverpool City Council (1); Sefton MBC (83); Doncaster MBC (41); North East Lincolnshire Council (49); Sunderland City Council (35); Hull City Council (11);Blackpool BC (12); Wolverhampton City Council (2Cool

30-38% reduction:

Barrow-in-Furness BC (29); Lancaster City Council (117); Hastings BC (31); Great Yarmouth BC (5Cool; Pendle BC (44); Hyndburn BC (40)

Source: DCLG figures seen by LGC

http://tinyurl.com/32mun7c

[tonyh29]

£16.7m spent by the Tories

In 2005 they were in a position to splash out £18m.

(they as in Labour)

Am I the only one that finds it somewhat amusing that a point is made about expenditure by the Tories when according to the article quoted , in the the election before Labour spent a far greater amount

it's almost as though the poster didn't actually read the article :-)

2005 and £18m got Labour a 6% drop in their overall vote

2010 and £16.7m got the Tories a 4% increase

Anyone spot the difference ?

That labours funding deserted them when they appointed Brown and it became clear he couldn't win a general election if he was the only candidate shows the system is wrong , but the rules say any party can spend up to £19.5m on an election so just because party A attracts more funding than party B or C doesn't make the party at fault just the system

[drat01]

No Tony - the point is a simple and easy one, you look at it as though its a point scoring, political funding is a hot topic for those who are looking for transparency in politics. It seems that the Tory millions, often donated by those who still fail to pay UK taxes and by those that can and do affect UK Gvmt policy, could not deliver a Tory gvmt, despite the fact that the other parties were significantly less funded and spent less on marketing millions.

Considering the backing of people like Murdoch also and the marketing background of people like Cameron, its somewhat of a failure that they now have to rely on a party like the LibDem's, ironically the party that they spent thousands on for anti-coalition messages, for them to introduce their vindictive and idealogical ideas. Maybe the UK population were like the US guys said in the Wikileaks and thought that Cameron et al were weak?

You are OK with funding (and the favours it brings) that is very obvious, many many others not. The fact that despite all of their financial advantages the Tory party were still unable to deliver shows them to be a weak party and "lightweight"? - but again stop playing the silly games of deflection will you and as this is about the ConDem maybe talk about this Gvmt?

[drat01]

Cable - what a &*^%

Vince Cable to vote for tuition fee rise

Business Secretary Vince Cable will back a rise in tuition fees in next week's crucial Commons vote, it has emerged.

He told a newspaper: "Obviously I have a duty as a minister to vote for my own policy - and that is what will happen."

Mr Cable has previously said all Lib Dem MPs would act collectively to abstain in the vote.

The Lib Dems told the BBC they are not disputing the quotes in the Richmond and Twickenham Times.

A source stressed the party's MPs were still discussing their position - but the BBC understands the idea of a mass abstention by Lib Dems on tuition fees is growing less likely.

'No doubt'

Liberal Democrats have faced angry protests from students, with the party's London MPs forced to cancel a planned conference on Saturday after fears it would be disrupted.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

What we are doing is giving universities the opportunity to maintain high standards by charging better off graduates later in life more than they are at the moment”

End Quote Vince Cable Business Secretary

Mr Cable told the newspaper he had reconsidered his decision and had "no doubt" he should support the controversial policy that will allow some universities to charge up to £9,000 in fees.

He said he had been considering abstaining to offer an "olive branch" to Lib Dem colleagues who were "finding this difficult".

He added that he felt sad when he saw students taking to the streets, saying: "Whenever I get the chance to discuss the situation with them face-to-face and I am able to explain it I think there is more understanding of the problem - that we had to take very substantial cuts in my department."

He added: "What we are doing is giving universities the opportunity to maintain high standards by charging better-off graduates later in life more than they are at the moment.

"But we built in a lot of protection for students from low income backgrounds and graduates who have a low income or take time out for a family, and I think there's common consensus that the system we've devised is a progressive one."

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said Mr Cable's revelation set up the possibility of a "three way split" in Thursday's Commons vote with some Lib Dems voting "yes", some "no" and some abstaining.

He will later meet students from St Mary's University College, in Twickenham, to discuss the issue.

Giving his reaction to the business secretary's revelation, Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said: "Dr Cable has performed so many U-turns over the issue of university funding that he is spinning on his heels.

"That might stand him in good stead with the Strictly Come Dancing judges but the electorate will see it differently."

General election

The Lib Dems have come under heavy pressure after pledging before the election to vote against any fee rise.

Mr Cable and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have both defended the proposals - which will see no upfront payments and graduates starting to repay the cost of their degrees when they earn £21,000.

They say low-earning students will contribute less than under the system the coalition inherited.

But student leaders say the proposals - which followed the independent Browne review of student finance - will deter people from poorer backgrounds from applying to university.

But party sources say the leadership has tried to limit the scale of the group planning to vote "no," with the whips warning backbenchers a government defeat on fees could trigger a general election.

About a dozen Lib Dem backbenchers are currently expected to vote against the increases - including former leader Sir Menzies Campbell and party president Tim Farron - but that would not be enough to prevent them becoming law.

Deputy Lib Dem leader Simon Hughes has still not decided what to do. He is expected to make a decision after the a meeting of the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party on Tuesday, the BBC understands.

The National Union of Students have said they will hold a "day of action" on Wednesday 8 December, on the eve of the Commons vote.

No Cable you don't have a duty to vote on your "own" policy at all. You were voted in on a policy that is completely different to that, on e that you signed a "pledge" against. You duty as such is to your constituents, and the sooner that people like him realise that the better. As said before the LibDems are finished, IMO, completely and utterly now unelectable having sold out on this and many of their core principles. They are now even dumping their pledges to the people that actually voted them as MP's, by abstaining from the votes is not the same as the commitment they made only a few months back.

[drat01]

I agree Awol but then think Snowy is likely right, personally I don't see that it should make a difference if he has paid it back or not. Fraud it fraud and this was fraud.

A custodial sentence for fraud though is not how it happens so it seems, especially when the fraud has been repaid. The bigger issue is still the fact that so many MP's of all parties have basically got away with this and that by picking on a few - ironically those not in power now? - MP's does not bring an end to the matter. There still seems to be a lot of claims that I know I would have great difficulty explaining if I was to submit them as part of my job, and I work away a lot. This is not a one party issue, its across all of them by the looks of it

Political "fraud" happens at all levels from councils up to the HOL. Some mistakes are genuine, a lot are ignorance and a lot are just breaking the laws / rules.

Like many things I leave the technicalities to those who know better, but for the man in the street this is a doc that was interesting to read explaining the thought process

link

Note: As said I have not got a scooby just saw that doc on another website pointed to by a poster / writer there

[snowychap]

...the whips warning backbenchers a government defeat on fees could trigger a general election.

Not a little irony that this appears to have been going on whilst, in parliament, they have been debating the Fixed-term Parliaments bill and, quite specifically, what may or may not constitute a confidence motion or motion of no cofidence.

No Cable you don't have a duty to vote on your "own" policy at all.

I would say that he does.

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy with your point about their duty to their constituents, I think it has been really quite daft for Cable et al to have been considering not voting for a government policy. They are in government and I can't see any other way of reading cabinet collective responsiblity (as outlined on p.3 of the ministerial code ) other than that they would have to resign from government in order to not vote for it.

If that is what you are getting at, i.e. that they should be doing this (resigning) and upholding their pledges, then I'd probably have to agree.

[Awol]

A custodial sentence for fraud though is not how it happens so it seems, especially when the fraud has been repaid.

Incredible really. If you steal something from a retail outlet and get caught you'd expect to go to prison - whether you've been forced to give it back or not. What these MP's have done is simple theft and many of them have done it on a grand scale. The cheeky **** have even tried to claim that as Members of Parliament they were above the law and could only be accountable to their peers!

The bigger issue is still the fact that so many MP's of all parties have basically got away with this and that by picking on a few - ironically those not in power now? - MP's does not bring an end to the matter. There still seems to be a lot of claims that I know I would have great difficulty explaining if I was to submit them as part of my job, and I work away a lot. This is not a one party issue, its across all of them by the looks of it

Yep and also those caught 'flipping' should all have been done too, but I think you're off the mark suggesting the CPS had some kind of bias against Labour. They were simply the one's whose theft from the taxpayer was so blatant that they couldn't wriggle out of it.

[drat01]

but I think you're off the mark suggesting the CPS had some kind of bias against Labour.

Where have I said that? I said the people were not in power, e.g. not MP's.

But there have been many MP's and politicians at all levels who have done similar with little "chasing" from anyone like the CPS.

For your first point no you don't go to prison for theft from a retail outlet. If that were the case then we would need to use the whole of the Isle of White as a prison. As said have a read of that doc and see what you think.