Awol Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Time to take some inspiration from the Arabs and throw the whole rotten Parliament out on its expensively padded arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 17, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2011 You will get little arguement from me mate, in my view many more of them should have been facing charges after the expenses farce than the few sacrificial lambs currently going through the courts. As a collective in my view they no longer perform their most fundamental role which is to be a representation of the general public. Now I've no desire to see people in pink tracksuits in the Commons representing Liverpool but politics on all sides seems almost entirely filled with self serving millionaires who are out of touch with reality and those they are supposed to be in Parliament on behalf of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 You will get little arguement from me mate, in my view many more of them should have been facing charges after the expenses farce than the few sacrificial lambs currently going through the courts. lots of news sources"]David Cameron will warn that people can no longer be trusted to claim only the benefits they needThat's the problem with the proles you can't just them to only claim the benefits they need - instead they will try to claim anything they think they can get away with. Completely unlike the MPs and their perfectly entitled to expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 lots of news sources"]David Cameron will warn that people can no longer be trusted to claim only the benefits they needThat's the problem with the proles you can't just them to only claim the benefits they need - instead they will try to claim anything they think they can get away with. Completely unlike the MPs and their perfectly entitled to expenses. Farcical, isn't it? As Trent has said they all acted to cover up their own mass criminality and now lambast the population for potential fraud. They just don't have any legitimacy, meanwhile the people are actually the victims of an all party conspiracy with the banks to comprehensively defraud the population. If this was on 'Yes Minister' it would actually be funny. The only question really is why people are putting up with what's happened? Lack of a coherent alternative way forward maybe? There doesn't seem to be a serious public appetite to comprehensively change things for the better, and that's what is needed. Tinkering around the edges won't make any real difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Time to take some inspiration from the Arabs and throw the whole rotten Parliament out on its expensively padded arse. BIAD. It's the only legitimate way forward. :notworthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 So I see they are going to abandon the forestry sell-off. Good news. Better that they recognise when they've got policy wrong and act than carry on regardless. Yes, I agree. My point is more that they frankly admit they hadn't thought it through, but were proposing to do it anyway. The same lack of thought is apparent in so much of what they are doing, but policies which are less unpopular with their core vote will go ahead anyway. Let's face it - the reason for the change of heart is only self-interest; if they were concerned about the issues, then that concern would have prevented the policy emerging in the first place. I can understand councils making some decisions which are destructive and foolhardy, faced with severe budget cuts and a legal requirement to enact a balanced budget. These constraints don't apply to the government, but it's acting like they do. For example, the consequence of changing the forestry policy will be to grab an equivalent saving from some other budget, rather than understanding that they don't have to make the cuts they have set out in the timescale they have chosen. They are consciously choosing to create damage and destruction by this approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 There doesn't seem to be a serious public appetite to comprehensively change things for the better, and that's what is needed. True, although that could easily chnage if more and larger groups in society become adversely affected by things. At the moment the students are revolting (although that does seem to have quietened a tad). But with the stringent public sector (and other) cuts, and massively growing yoof unemplyment, things could start to get more ugly from the more adversely affected groups. Tinkering around the edges won't make any real difference. I think the people need a big kick up the arse to genuinely want and seek fundamnetal change, and not party political tinkering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 There doesn't seem to be a serious public appetite to comprehensively change things for the better, and that's what is needed. True, although that could easily chnage if more and larger groups in society become adversely affected by things. At the moment the students are revolting (although that does seem to have quietened a tad). But with the stringent public sector (and other) cuts, and massively growing yoof unemplyment, things could start to get more ugly from the more adversely affected groups. A large part of the problem is the lack of a broad and coherent alternative view, because the Labour Party will take some time to rediscover that, if indeed it ever does after the wholesale changes in people and philosophy brought about by the Blairites over the course of 15 years. People who could articulate that, like Bryan Gould, became so marginalised that they drifted away. Because of that, opposition tends to be about specific policies, one at a time, instead of presenting a different world-view. And that means that things which should be recognised as ideological and contentious sometimes aren't. For example, most radio presenters dealing with political and economic interviews are now in the habit of saying things like "Well what would you do? Because the deficit has to be paid. So what would you cut instead?". This dripfeed reinforces a kind of dull acceptance of the position as somehow a fact, rather than an ideology based on the same economic orthodoxy which failed to see the crisis developing and which is helpless to deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 So I see they are going to abandon the forestry sell-off. Good news. Better that they recognise when they've got policy wrong and act than carry on regardless. Yes, I agree. My point is more that they frankly admit they hadn't thought it through, but were proposing to do it anyway. The same lack of thought is apparent in so much of what they are doing, but policies which are less unpopular with their core vote will go ahead anyway. Agreed, trouble is I don't think any of them have solutions. The top shadow team of Ed X 2 were major architects of the mess we've gotten into and have produced no credible ideas since losing office. The Lib Dems are achieving little and (imo) never actually had credible ideas in the first place, and the Tories appear wedded to the blunt instrument of massive cuts without actually thinking through the implications of what they are doing. Meanwhile all sides quietly ignore the fact that the political system is set up to support the most powerful - rich - bankers and their allies in the private sector at the expense of the little guy. It's corrupt and unjust and people are being offered no alternative. Shamocracy as Gringo calls it. IMO Bickster and others have it right, the HoC needs to be filled with fully Independent MP's and party politics put down like the sick animal it is. Those MP's can then elect a PM and Cabinet from within their number. Have an appointed HoL/Senate with fixed terms for indvduals of 12 years with 1/3 being replaced every four years to mantain continuity. Their primary responsbility becomes monitoring the probity of the lower house to keep them honest. Until we have representatives that act in the interests of the electorate things will continue to deteriorate. I can understand councils making some decisions which are destructive and foolhardy, faced with severe budget cuts and a legal requirement to enact a balanced budget. True but the salaries some of the senior exec's are paying themselves from public funds are a disgrace and I think many in local government are part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 17, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2011 lots of news sources"]David Cameron will warn that people can no longer be trusted to claim only the benefits they needThat's the problem with the proles you can't just them to only claim the benefits they need - instead they will try to claim anything they think they can get away with. Completely unlike the MPs and their perfectly entitled to expenses. True, but cynicism aside for a moment, it's as wrong for an MP to claim falsely as it is for an unemployed docker. None should do it. SO while it might be a bit rich for him to say it, he's broadly right, isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 17, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2011 My point is more that they frankly admit they hadn't thought it through, but were proposing to do it anyway. The same lack of thought is apparent in so much of what they are doing, but policies which are less unpopular with their core vote will go ahead anyway. Let's face it - the reason for the change of heart is only self-interest; if they were concerned about the issues, then that concern would have prevented the policy emerging in the first place... ...the consequence of changing the forestry policy will be to grab an equivalent saving from some other budget, rather than understanding that they don't have to make the cuts they have set out in the timescale they have chosen. They are consciously choosing to create damage and destruction by this approach.Totally agree on the first part. On the second, I dunno. It wasn't going to save any money, in reality, it was going to cost money. Perhaps, therefore, it's more a case that it was ideological, but enough tory types opposed it to force them to abandon it. It was nothing to do with cuts or money, so will have no impact on anything else - other than perhaps they'll try and come up with some other way to let their sponsors get hold of swathes of land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Meanwhile all sides quietly ignore the fact that the political system is set up to support the most powerful - rich - bankers and their allies in the private sector at the expense of the little guy. It's corrupt and unjust and people are being offered no alternative. Shamocracy as Gringo calls it. It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. If the American people ever allow private banks to control issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 True but the salaries some of the senior exec's are paying themselves from public funds are a disgrace and I think many in local government are part of the problem. If you look at the level of responsibility of senior jobs in local government and compare them to the private sector, it's quite instructive. The CE of an urban council has some pretty big responsibilities. Just picking one at random, say Leicester, there's a budget of around £270m, and responsibility for education, social services and the rest for a population of almost 300,000. Looking at what the private sector is paying in the £150-200k range, I see things like management consultant, head of a private healthcare facility, CE of a network of firms (responsible for the network co-ordination, not the firms); jobs with frankly nothing like the same breadth and depth of responsibility. The current hysteria about local government pay is nothing more than a shallow and cynical ploy to divert attention from the government's undermining of public services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 ... On the second, I dunno. It wasn't going to save any money, in reality, it was going to cost money. Perhaps, therefore, it's more a case that it was ideological, but enough tory types opposed it to force them to abandon it. It was nothing to do with cuts or money, so will have no impact on anything else - other than perhaps they'll try and come up with some other way to let their sponsors get hold of swathes of land Up to £350m income from sales, plus savings from redundancies in the Forestry Commission. The sale of 150-year leases is expected to raise between £150m and £250m over 10 years. On top of that the government will sell 15% of its English forest estate in the next four years for about £100m. The money is expected to go straight to the Treasury and not back into forestry. Not a great deal in the grand scheme of things, but it all adds up. I agree the larger motivation is about changing the ownership, partly to allow private firms to profit from public property (the enclosures, again), and partly just right-wing ideology that anything owned publicly is by definition bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 The current hysteria about local government pay is nothing more than a shallow and cynical ploy to divert attention from the government's undermining of public services. Absolutely Peter, Pickles especially is guilty of deflection on a massive scale here, its obvious that this Gvmt want the public opinion to think that leaders of these councils are the cause of the problems, conveniently forgetting the responsibilities and compare to the private sector. I know a heck of a lot of people working in IT in banks for example earning 6 figure salaries, with little comparison to the responsibilities that the people Pickles is trying to paint as the causes of the problems. People keep mentioning the "salary" that Cameron gets, but conveniently forget that this is not the total sum of his package, which R2 the other day estimated to be nearer 2 million per year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 More examples are oozing out of the way this Gvmt thinks. Thy are now putting forward a plan to privatise blood banks!! link Private companies are in talks with the Department of Health about taking over the storage and distribution of blood under the plan to make the service more “commercially effective”. However collection would likely still be run by the National Health Service, amid fears that potential donors would be put off if they believed their free act of giving blood was going to boost the profits of private firms. It comes after the plan to sell off England’s public forests was put on hold following outcry that a treasured national asset could be privatised. Henny Braund, chief executive of the leukaemia transplant charity Anthony Nolan, said “We believe that the public reaction to any privatisation of the service needs to be carefully considered. “There is a danger people will be put off from becoming a donor if they think a company is making a profit from their donation.” At the moment, 7,000 units of blood are collected in England and North Wales each day and 2million are distributed a year to patients who need transfusions or treatment for those who have had surgery or been in accidents. Hospitals are charged £125 a unit – just less than a pint – but the price has actually fallen in recent years as efficiencies have been made. The service is operated by NHS Blood and Transplant, a quango that escaped last year’s cull but is now undergoing another review to identify how it can work better and save money. In common with many public sector organisations, its call centre, catering, security, legal department and some office administration facilities are already run by private companies. But under the new review led by the Department of Health and disclosed by the Health Service Journal, further functions such as the storage of blood and its delivery around the country – which is already part controlled by the courier firm TNT – could be sold off. Last year the Government said arms-length bodies “will be expected to exploit commercial opportunities and maximise commercial discipline across the sector”. The Department of Health said: “It is important to recognise that NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) already outsources some of its support functions. The current review is at the early stages and is overseen by a Steering Group containing representatives from relevant Department policy teams and NHSBT. "During the review, we will be considering the experience and skills that exist in the private sector to identify opportunities for making NHSBT more commercially effective. This is in line with the findings of last year's ALB Review report. “We are not considering any functions that could risk destabilising the current national donor system particularly the interface with donors. Where functions are being reviewed, Ministers will be fully consulted before making any recommendations.” Karen Jennings, head of health at the public sector Unison, said: “What is this Government thinking of, is nothing safe? The blood service is world class and doesn’t need interfering with. “It epitomises how successfully volunteers and the public sector can work together, free from contamination by the profit motive. It is a service people are proud to work in and you cannot put a price on giving blood to save lives. “We know from all the evidence that fragmenting services, outsourcing and contracting out, damages that ethos and more importantly damages the smooth running of the service. “How can Cameron and Lansley claim that the NHS is safe in their hands, when they are planning to literally drain its lifeblood.” More and more now emerging of the way that this Gvmt is determined to privatise the NHS, conveniently to people who support their party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Scrapping of minimum wage next? link The adamsmith institute is a long time influencer and go-to for the Tory party. They were significant for the Tory party when they went off on their sell the family silver privatisation during Thatcher's tenure of number 10. Cameron has said before that he respects their views and the fact they are publishing this suggests quite strongly that this is a policy that is being seriously considered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Unemployment for young people has hit a high here, rate of unemployment is 11% which is 3% above local areas on the mainland. With over 500 jobs going in the public sector and still having numerous cuts in the private sector and also having lost a number of businesses including the wind turbines AND Ferry prices higher per mile than ones to the rest of Europe (from Cowes / Ryde / Yarmouth) and Bus prices taking another 7% hike (around £3.00 for a single ticket) and also cuts to the cheap "student riders" (now don't exist) the Island is only going to get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 True but the salaries some of the senior exec's are paying themselves from public funds are a disgrace and I think many in local government are part of the problem. If you look at the level of responsibility of senior jobs in local government and compare them to the private sector, it's quite instructive. Following that logic then the PM/Chancellor/Foreign Minister et al should be on salaries of a million plus at least, yes? Obviously they are not because the job is seen as public service and logically local gov' should follow the same model. For example when the head of child services in Haringey Council is paid more than the PM then I think Pickles has a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 lots of news sources"]David Cameron will warn that people can no longer be trusted to claim only the benefits they needThat's the problem with the proles you can't just them to only claim the benefits they need - instead they will try to claim anything they think they can get away with. Completely unlike the MPs and their perfectly entitled to expenses. David Cameron, when speaking about the changes to child benefit (honesty boxes for higher earners and the like), said: link ''I don't start from the proposition that we're all appalling cheats and liars'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts