Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

But Coulsen has undoubtedly not been found "innocent".

under English law he is innocent until proven guilty , so he may not have been "found" innocent as to all extents and purposes he always was

[chrisp65]

But Coulsen has undoubtedly not been found "innocent".

under English law he is innocent until proven guilty , so he may not have been "found" innocent as to all extents and purposes he always was

that's a little bit cheeky there to complain about people having an agenda and then slipping in the Coulsen found innocent thing

if you have good news, post it up, I know 4 people who've been laid off this week, we could do with some good news

[tonyh29]

Britain is now more Thatcherite than when Margaret Thatcher was in power, with people much less supportive of the welfare state and the redistribution of wealth than in the 1980s, according to an authoritative study of the country's mood.

New Labour oversaw the biggest recorded shift to the right in public attitudes on those measures, despite a surge in concern about the scale of the wealth gap between rich and poor.

Sympathy towards benefit claimants has evaporated, along with support for redistributive tax and spend policies, over the past 20 years, with Labour governing during a period of significant hardening of attitudes towards the poor, the annual results of the British Social Attitudes survey reveal.

But public satisfaction with health and education improved dramatically over the same period, the study shows, leaving the researchers asking why Labour did not fight the election on its social policy record – and warning that the coalition is now risking a significant backlash against its reforms and cuts to public services that people are happy with.

Making profound reforms to the NHS or schools, when trust in politicians has reached an all-time low, risks considerable public resistance, the report concludes. The annual British Social Attitudes survey of more than 3,500 people, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research every year since 1983, this year offers a verdict on the 13 years of Labour rule.

Penny Young, chief executive of the National Centre for Social Research, said: "The survey points to a nation at political crossroads between left and right: it is perhaps little surprise that the election resulted in a coalition. On the one hand we are seeing a hardening of attitudes towards welfare reform, whilst on the other there is strong support for investment in health and education."

It finds that the public is now less sympathetic towards benefit claimants than at the end of the Thatcher era. In 1991, 58% thought the government should spend more on benefits. By 2009 that had more than halved to 27%.

Just over half (51%) backed policies to redistribute income from rich to poor in 1989, compared with 36% now. The researchers blamed the "significant change in political rhetoric" throughout the New Labour years, with the abandonment of Clause 4, the party's promise to redistribute wealth, and the emphasis in welfare policies on people going back to work. "This could be due to the reluctance of parties on the left to talk positively about redistribution, which has become synonymous with an 'Old Labour' 'tax and spend' approach," the report says.

But concern about inequality in wealth has simultaneously grown, with 78% of people now saying the income gap between rich and poor is too large. The report argues that the difference between high levels of concern about that income gap and support for policies to redistribute wealth is explained by "self-interest" on the part of higher earners who do not want to lose money from their pay packets to support others and a perception of "laziness" among poorer people.

Satisfaction with the NHS is at an all-time high. When Labour gained power in 1997, only a third of people (34%) were satisfied with the NHS, the lowest level since the survey began in 1983. By 2009, satisfaction had nearly doubled, and stood at two-thirds (64%). Reduced waiting times, after the introduction of targets, are a crucial factor in this.

In 1996, about a half (56%) thought schools taught basic skills well, rising to nearly three-quarters (73%) by 2008. But there is still deep concerns about the effectiveness of schools in preparing young people for work, with only half thinking schools do this well.

Trust in politicians has plummeted after the expenses scandal. Four in 10 "almost never" trust British governments to put the national interest first – about four times as high as during the 1980s.

Trust in bankers has fallen even more precipitously. In 1983, 90% believed banks were well run, and their reputation for being well managed was higher than many other institutions, including the police and the BBC. Now just 19% think banks are well run and their reputation for good management is far below that of either the press (39%) or trade unions (35%).

Young said: "Record levels of investment under Labour appear to have paid off in terms of public satisfaction – particularly on health, where satisfaction levels are now at all time high. The coalition will need to tread carefully to avoid a backlash against the potential impact of reform or failure to invest. In contrast, changing attitudes to welfare are in tune with the government, suggesting the public will back benefit reform.

"It is twenty years since Margaret Thatcher left office, but public opinion is far closer now to many of her core beliefs than it was then. Our findings show that attitudes have hardened over the last two decade, and are more in favour of cutting benefits and against taxing the better off disproportionately. But just as Blair and Brown incorporated key concepts of Thatcherism into New Labour's ideology, Britain today is sending a clear message to Cameron and Clegg that it values the investment Labour has made in this country's core public services

clicky

[avfc89]

They have selected Woolas' replacement.

Presumably a candidate with more integrity. A lump of dog shit, perhaps?

[drat01]

There are a lot of Tory voters, like this bloke, what he says certainly rips apart even more some of the marketing gloss around that party

Do as the leadership says or you will lose your job - Tory

Tuition fees 'stoke Tory hostility towards coalition'

A senior Conservative backbencher has warned that the tuition fees row has stoked "widespread" disaffection in the party about the coalition leadership.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis said many of his colleagues thought Liberal Democrat MPs were allowed to do what they liked.

Meanwhile, he said, Tory MPs were being told "Right, you don't vote for this, your career is over".

He said the "sheer degree of hostility" among Tory MPs had been surprising.

Speaking on Pienaar's Politics on BBC 5 Live , the MP for Haltemprice and Howden said he had been shocked by the reaction as the coalition struggled to push through rises in university tuition fees in England.

"What was surprising was the sheer degree of hostility really to the general coalition leadership in its widest sense from a lot of my colleagues," he said.

"Some of them mulling over whether they should vote in order to defeat the government, one or two of them, I think, not just to make a point."

On Thursday, the government survived a revolt by Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs over its plans to increase university tuition fees.

Twenty-one Lib Dem MPs rebelled, along with six Conservatives, including Mr Davis.

David Davis Mr Davis was defeated by Mr Cameron for the Conservatives' top job in 2005

But Mr Davis said the anger was "multi-cause" and not limited to tuition fees.

"It was wider than that, all sorts of things ranging from tuition fees through a feeling that they have been taken for granted," he said. "A feeling that the Liberal Democrats are allowed to say what they like and do what they like.

"All the Liberal Democrats are being cosseted while they decide whether to abstain or to vote against or vote for, while the Tories are being told, 'right, you don't vote for this, your career is over', or 'you vote for this, you have got to resign as a PPS (parliamentary private secretary)'.

"It seemed to be pretty widespread and it seemed to be really quite uncomfortable... it's everything from tuition fees at one end, through to things like expenses."

Mr Davis was defeated by Mr Cameron for the Conservatives' top job in 2005, and three years later shocked many by quitting the shadow cabinet to campaign on civil liberties issues.

The odds on an election next year have plummeted and there is no open dissent between all areas in this Gvmt.

[Jon]

and there is no open dissent between all areas in this Gvmt.

A "w". A"w".

My kingdom for a "w"

:winkold:

[Awol]

I'm not surprised Ian, if you hadn't noticed yet Cameron is about as Conservative as John Lennon.

His approach to Defence, the EU and the (excessive) power of the State are all things that many small 'c' Conservatives feel pretty betrayed over. I think he's making the Blair/Brown mistake of ignoring his core vote and if there was a snap election he could be in trouble.

[tonyh29]

maybe some of these Lib Dems aren't so bad after all

But Lib Dem president Tim Farron dismissed Mr Miliband's attempt to reach out to the party and asked why progressives would give Labour a "second glance".

Mr Farron said the coalition was tackling Labour's economic legacy, reforming British politics, and targeting more money at disadvantaged children.

"Continuing that work is something far more attractive to Liberal Democrats than helping Ed Miliband's increasingly desperate attempts to work out what he actually stands for," he added.

and on same story , Brother Dave has stopped sulking and will soon by back to take over the party

[drat01]

So today we see some crackers from this pretty disgusting Gvmt

- Water Cannons to be used on UK streets

- Eric Pickles massive and vindictive cuts

- The promises Gideon made about Sure Start being protected totally blown out of the water

Not the Tories fault I suppose but blimey these party logo's do look alike

[Awol]

So today we see some crackers from this pretty disgusting Gvmt

- Water Cannons to be used on UK streets

FTW

- Eric Pickles massive and vindictive cuts

Cuts to local council funding you mean? How do you come to the conclusion that they are "vindictive"?

- The promises Gideon made about Sure Start being protected totally blown out of the water

Not heard anything about this yet, any links?

Not the Tories fault I suppose but blimey these party logo's do look alike

That's pretty sad, even for you.

[snowychap]

- The promises Gideon made about Sure Start being protected totally blown out of the water

Not heard anything about this yet, any links?

How safe is Sure Start?

The claim

“Sure Start services will be protected in cash terms, and the programme will be refocused on its original purpose.”

Chancellor George Osborne MP, Spending Review statement, October 20, 2010

Cathy Newman checks it out

The chancellor couldn’t have been clearer. When he set out £81bn of spending cuts, George Osborne was clear that in cash terms – before inflation is taken into account – spending on the country’s network of Sure Start centres would be protected.

But will it? Combing through the fine print of today’s town hall cuts, there is serious room for doubt.

The analysis

During the election, Labour accused the Tories of planning to cut £200m from the Sure Start budget. We gave the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt in a previous FactCheck. Tonight, though, FactCheck has unearthed new question-marks about the government’s commitment to the programme.

This year, £1.1bn was spent on Sure Start, and the Chancellor promised in October that that figure wouldn’t change. But since then the education secretary Michael Gove said funding for Sure Start would be wrapped into a new “early intervention grant”. Today the government set out exactly which other programmes would be covered by the grant. They include measures to tackle teenage pregnancy and breaks for disabled children.

In the small print of today’s documents, the education department confirms: “In 2011-12, the overall amount to be allocated through EIG is 10.9% lower than the aggregated funding that makes up the notional baseline in 2010-11. In 2012-13 it is 7.5% below 2010-11.”

The programmes covered by the grant were in total worth £2.5bn this year. Next year, they will only be worth £2.2bn. And an education department spokesman told FactCheck that Sure Start funding was not ring fenced. So if councils want to spend more of their early intervention grant combating teenage pregnancy, for example, and less on children’s centres, they are completely at liberty to do so.

Cathy Newman’s verdict

The chancellor’s promise on Sure Start rings hollow. It may be that councils decide to protect the children’s centres, but when the early intervention grant is being cut overall by 11 per cent, town halls have little room for manoeuvre.

By the end of next year, if I were a betting woman, I wouldn’t put money on £1.1bn being spent next year, as it was last year. By letting the programme take its chances alongside an array of other projects, it is hardly protecting Sure Start – more like throwing it to the wolves.

[drat01]

So Jon - the outraged of so many political debates actually is very happy with the introduction of water cannons to the streets of the UK, how hypocritical of you.

As for Pickles cuts you know very well how they are vindictive and regressive, stop trying to deflect the issue please.

Gideon's lies re Sure Start - link

the logo's, as said its not the Tory parties fault but why is "sad" for me? Don't you think that the marketing emphasis of the Tory party will be pretty mortified that the BNP have basically stolen their logo?

[tonyh29]

All the bnp need now is a good slogan

Shame that "British jobs for British workers" has already been taken :-)

But I fail to see any relevance in posting a bnp logo into this thread , your Internet bookmarked web sites are not really of interest to the rest of us , unless they are porn related :winkold:

[drat01]

More examples emerge of the vindictive cuts that Pickles made today. The poorest councils will face the biggest cuts while some of the richest will actually get raises in their budgets. How that fat bastard has the cheek to smile at cameras is beyond me.

Poorest councils will face biggest cuts

Deprived inner-city councils will see reductions of up to 8.9% – leaving them 'powerless' to protect frontline services

The poorest councils face the biggest cuts next year under a settlement announced today that left town halls claiming they are now powerless to protect frontline services from a wave of library, social services and leisure centre closures.

Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, today allocated a last-minute emergency £85m fund in an attempt to insulate the poorest areas from the worst cuts next year. But despite his efforts, deprived inner-city areas of London and large cities in the north are facing the most drastic reductions of up to 8.9% this year alone, with the shires and county councils relatively protected by their burgeoning council tax revenue. The Local Government Association labelled the cuts the "toughest in living memory".

Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Manchester, Rochdale, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Doncaster and South Tyneside are among the 36 local authorities that take the maximum cut of 8.9%. Meanwhile Dorset gets a 0.25% increase in funding and Windsor and Maidenhead, Poole, West Sussex, Wokingham, Richmond upon Thames and Buckinghamshire all get cuts of 1% or below.

The council settlement came amid a flurry of funding announcements, setting out the fine detail of the government's £81bn deficit reduction programmes for next year, including:

• Each of the 43 England and Wales police forces will see a 5.1% cut in funding next year and a 6.7% reduction in 2012-13.

• The budget for policing the Olympics in 2012 has been unexpectedly slashed from £600m to £475m. The money will still be made available, but ministers believe it can be done more cheaply. The prime minister's spokesman said: "We think that it's possible to be more efficient in many public services. On that specific one we think it is possible to do things more cheaply. The full £600m remains available if it is necessary."

• Next year's budget of £834m for highways maintenance will reduce to £707m by 2014-15 – a 15% drop in spending on road repairs.

•The education budget for England for next year is revealed, including the new "pupil premium", which will give schools an additional £430 for every pupil they admit who qualifies for free school meals. The education department confirmed it could no longer deliver its promise of a 0.1% real-terms year-on-year increase after the Office for Budget Responsibility revised the inflation figures up, meaning that the £3.6bn cash increase would now mean a marginal cut in budgets.

Pickles also published the long-awaited localism bill, announcing 12 new mayors in major cities, and giving councils new powers to set up banks and lending facilities. New measures will be introduced to cut red tape to aid community groups that want to buy council buildings or take over services. But the devolved powers that councils have long been asking for came with the bitter blow of drastically reduced budgets.

The government was also accused of contradicting its own localism agenda by announcing it was going to impose the new mayors, with referendums to ratify them after the event, despite promising that local people would decide beforehand.

The new council budgets were wrapped in with each council's revenues from council tax and car parking charges in a measure of their "spending power". By that measure the maximum cut is 8.9% with an average of 4.4% across the 350 councils in England.

But that masked much higher cuts to the central government "formula" grant, which will be cut by 9.9% on average in 2011-12 and 7.3% the year after. For some councils it amounts to a 17% cut in central government funding next year.

Pickles insisted that the last-minute changes would make the deal fairer. "This will be a progressive settlement and fair between different parts of the country," he told the Commons.

But Tony Travers, local government expert at the LSE, said: "It's clearly shifting resources from relatively deprived inner-city areas towards more affluent shires. It's certainly going to be hard for government to describe it as progressive."

Caroline Flint, the shadow communities secretary, said that Labour would be making cuts, but they wouldn't be frontloading them or imposing them on the poorest areas. "Many people up and down the country will feel let down by this deeply unfair settlement," she said.

"All Eric Pickles's warm words about transitional funds can't disguise the truth – the poorest neighbourhoods will be hardest hit while the better-off will do best as a result of the choices the coalition government is making."

The discrepancy in funding arises from the fact that the poorest areas are the most dependent on central government funding while wealthy areas that receive a lot in council tax are getting extra subsidies after the government promised extra central funding to subsidise a freeze in council tax payments.

Lady Eaton, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, said: "Councils now face incredibly tough choices about the services they continue to provide and those they will have to cut. This is the toughest local government finance settlement in living memory.

"We have been clear that the level of spending reduction that councils are going to have to make goes way beyond anything that conventional efficiency drives, such as shared services, can achieve. We have to face the fact that this level of grant reduction will inevitably lead to cuts in services."

[colhint]

its all a bit like the villa really. The last lot left us in the shit and 6 months in the new bloke hasn't won the european cup yet, lets sack him

[peterms]

blimey these party logo's do look alike

The BNP one just looks stupid, like a naff "I love Britain" sign.

The tory one, one the other hand, is deeply disturbing. It looks like a ninja turtle in a red headband, devouring a small child. What kind of crazed mind could give birth to this? Does it reflect the true nature of their Sure Start policy? What can it all mean?

[blandy]

They used to have a tree, but due to cuts it became a stump and that wasn't felt to be very edifying, so they moved on to a sort of deflated balloon signifying the release of alot of hot air and plummeting fortunes.

[snowychap]

The Lib Dems might want to look at this as their next logo:

[peterms]

The Lib Dems might want to look at this as their next logo:

Maybe this.

[TrentVilla]

So that is 9% cuts for Nottingham almost twice the national average, another reason to love this government. Still, must remember we are all in this together, well depending on your postcode obviously.