Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

PM/Chancellor/Foreign Minister et al should be on salaries of a million plus at least,

They are!

The "package" they receive is far more than the headline figure of base salary

[Awol]

Scrapping of minimum wage next?

link

So because a think tank suggests a whacky idea that means:

the fact they are publishing this suggests quite strongly that this is a policy that is being seriously considered

lol. What rubbish. There is plenty to attack the government for without literally making things up!

[Awol]

PM/Chancellor/Foreign Minister et al should be on salaries of a million plus at least,

They are!

The "package" they receive is far more than the headline figure of base salary

So other than accommodation which all one way or another is provided for all MP's, how is this £million+ package made up? Genuinely interested if it's true.

[Risso]

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.

You want to try our ferry prices. £400 for a return trip in the school holidays, robbing bastards.

[drat01]

Making it up? Obviously then the AdamSmith institute is not a major contributor to Tory party thinking, they have never influenced their policy, they are not openly suggesting this as policy - ooops they are.

History and reality show that this is a policy that is certainly on the Tory party agenda. then again there are still people who think they wont raise VAT, cut NHS budgets, cutback on front line services .......

[Dodgyknees]

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.

You want to try our ferry prices. £400 for a return trip in the school holidays, robbing bastards.

That is pretty shocking tbh.

[drat01]

PM/Chancellor/Foreign Minister et al should be on salaries of a million plus at least,

They are!

The "package" they receive is far more than the headline figure of base salary

So other than accommodation which all one way or another is provided for all MP's, how is this £million+ package made up? Genuinely interested if it's true.

Was discussed on the Jeremy Vine show on Tuesday - ripping apart this headline figure often quoted

[Jon]

You want to try our ferry prices. £400 for a return trip in the school holidays, robbing bastards.

AKA trying to keep the inbread 6 toed lunatics off the mainland. :winkold:

[drat01]

Blind people to have their allowances cut by 30 pounds per week by the Tory led Gvmt

Blind and partially sighted people will no longer automatically be eligible for benefits under changes that are expected to save the government £1bn over the next five years.

Tens of thousands of people with sight loss could lose around £30 a week and miss out on support to find work under changes to the benefit system due to start in April, according to the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

They are unlikely be eligible for the replacement for incapacity benefit, or for tailored support helping them find work, the charity said, because a new test designed to assess levels of disability makes it much harder to qualify and ignores the difficulties blind people face as they search for work.

The institute says blind people feel "a massive sense of betrayal and are worried about the future". The changes, they believe, will push them on to the lower-paid jobseeker's allowance.

Their concerns emerged as the government prepares to introduce wide-reaching changes to the entire benefit system in a welfare reform bill.

Previously people who were registered blind were automatically entitled to incapacity benefit, but that is being phased out. From April all existing claimants will have to undergo a new medical test of their fitness for work.

The test has much tighter criteria, making it more difficult to be judged eligible for employment support allowance, the new benefit. During pilots of the changeover, 70% fewer claimants were found eligible for the full-rate, unconditional support benefit.

The new benefit has two levels: the support group, where claimants are judged to be too disabled or unwell to be expected to work, and the work-related activity group, who are deemed to be capable of working, provided they are helped into employment.

The way the test for the new benefit has been set up means that blind people will be less likely to score enough points to qualify for either level, according to the RNIB. They will not then be eligible for targeted support-into-work sessions, organised by jobcentres, and will instead automatically go on to jobseeker's allowance, which pays around £30 less a week than the existing incapacity benefit.

Steve Winyard, the RNIB's head of policy and campaigns, said the new test would "systematically exclude" blind and partially sighted people "from support to prepare for and move into employment".

The work capability assessment (WCA), which judges whether a claimant is fit enough to work, has attracted huge numbers of complaints since its introduction in 2008. Described by charities as blunt and unsophisticated, the test has passed people who are terminally ill as fit to work, and has repeatedly failed to register the difficulties faced by people with learning disabilities and mental health problems.

Changes were recommended in a very critical independent report into the test last November; most of these will be implemented, the government says, before existing incapacity benefit claimants begin to be retested, at a rate of 11,000 a week, from April.

But another set of changes to the test were introduced last week, and it is these measures which make it unlikely that blind people will be awarded the benefit.

In order to qualify for the new benefit claimants need to score 15 points in a computer-led test of their physical and mental abilities. The full 15 points will be awarded if the blind person is "unable to navigate around familiar surroundings without being accompanied by another person due to sensory impairment".

RNIB staff argue that if, for example, someone has a guide dog, they will be able to navigate around familiar surroundings, so will not be awarded the points.

They predict that most blind and partially sighted people will be given no more than nine points under the current structure of the test, meaning they will not qualify.

"Blind and partially sighted people never wanted to be seen as incapable of work, which is why we welcomed the shift from IB to ESA, but we always understood that there was going to be proper support to help us get into work," Winyard said.

"The new WCA test will mean many blind and partially sighted people are deemed immediately able to work and moved straight on to jobseeker's allowance, which will mean a big drop in income and less support to find work: 92% of employers describe blind or partially sighted people as difficult or impossible to employ.

"The government has broken a promise to improve these flawed proposals. It has ignored specialist advice, criticising its plans. At RNIB we are left asking just how this demonstrates a commitment to 'protect the most vulnerable'?"

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said support to help people find work would still be provided, even for people who did not qualify for the employment support allowance.

"We want the WCA to treat people as individuals and assess them based on their individual needs rather than simply labelling them because of their condition," he said.

"Those who are found fit for work will get the help and support they need to get a job. Those found too sick or disabled to work won't be expected to and will continue to receive the help and support they need to lead fulfilling lives."

Aren't they just a nice bunch of people?

[Awol]

Making it up? Obviously then the AdamSmith institute is not a major contributor to Tory party thinking, they have never influenced their policy, they are not openly suggesting this as policy - ooops they are.

Them suggesting something doesn't mean

this suggests quite strongly that this is a policy that is being seriously considered

..and that's what I was pointing out. Not that they haven't influenced them in the past, or that they don't contribute financially (no idea on that) just that them making a suggestion on the minimum wage for under 21's doesn't mean it's being seriously considered as policy.

Screwing with the minimum wage would be tantamount to ritual suicide.

History and reality show that this is a policy that is certainly on the Tory party agenda

You might want that to be true but there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest they've considered changing it. They incorrectly opposed the idea when Blair bought it in but not a murmur about it since.

[Awol]

Blind people to have their allowances cut by 30 pounds per week by the Tory led Gvmt

Not trying to be harsh but should people automatically get 30 quid a week for being blind? Help with guide dogs, subsidies for necessary housing alterations and the like I can understand, but simply getting free money they may not even need for being blind?

What about deaf or mute people? People who've lost limbs? Do they get money automatically too? I genuinely don't know btw.

[drat01]

Paddy Ashdown admitting that Gvmt policy is all about self preservation rather than honouring pledges

Oh dear Paddy you really did make yourself and the Gvmt look like idiot - not that its very hard at the moment

[blandy]

... 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.

As I previously posted (2 Feb), the Gov'ts own figures show it would cost money here

[peterms]

Even madder than I thought, then. I was clearly being too generous to them.

[peterms]

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.

The equivalent to the PM in a local authority is the leader of the council, not the chief executive. The closest comparison for senior posts in local government would be senior posts in ministries, not an elected office. Even then, the jobs are quite dissimilar, with central government being more focussed on policy skills and strategy development, and local government posts being more about direct service provision.

Comparing the chief officers of a local authority with a national politician is just not a sensible comparison - simply a bit of political knockabout.

[peterms]

Blind people to have their allowances cut by 30 pounds per week by the Tory led Gvmt

Not trying to be harsh but should people automatically get 30 quid a week for being blind? Help with guide dogs, subsidies for necessary housing alterations and the like I can understand, but simply getting free money they may not even need for being blind?

What about deaf or mute people? People who've lost limbs? Do they get money automatically too? I genuinely don't know btw.

There's some background on the types and levels of disability benefits in the government's consultation document, here. It includes some stuff on the history and rationale for such payments, but basically they are paid in recognition of the fact that disability brings with it extra costs which non-disabled people don't have.

I think the story on blind people is more specifically about the changes to what used to be called Incapacity Benefit. The last government started a review of this, led by an odd character who used to be what sounds like a stereotypical irresponsible banker, David Freud.

A week after the ERSA press release The Daily Telegraph reported that Freud himself had severed all ties with ministers and was joining the Conservatives’ work and pensions team – “after being put forward for a peerage”. With the polls increasingly indicating a Conservative government for Westminster at the next election (mid-2010 at the latest), The Herald reported: “The Conservatives promised a “full-blooded version” of what they termed the Government’s “half-hearted” implementation of [Freud’s] radical proposals.”

Mr Freud is such an interesting chap that I quote this fairly lengthy description of him. Seems like the ideal person to conduct a review into benefits, with his long experience and detailed knowledge of the issues.

David Freud is the great grandson of the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. He started out as a journalist but went into the City of London in the eighties, just when the global finance revolution was kicking off. Initially his basic pay was much the same as when he had been a journalist. But, as Jane Martinson observes: “By the time he left twenty years later no self-respecting banker would get out of bed for anything less than six figures”. In the interim, Martinson adds, he “worked on some of the biggest and most controversial deals of the 1980s and 1990s” and became vice-chairman of UBS investment banking.

Freud himself said to his deputy: “If the rest of the country knew what we were being paid, there would be tumbrels on the street and heads carried round on pikes”.

In 2006 Freud published a book about his career. The ‘blurb’ on its back cover includes a comment from the playwright, David Hare, who describes the book as a “morally ambiguous account of twenty crazy years of buoyant capitalism”. Freud admits to what Martinson calls “suspect behaviour” amidst what Freud himself describes as a “pioneering, piratical industry, where we made up the rules”.

In his City career Freud frequently got things seriously wrong. As one reviewer of his book put it, Freud “will be remembered in the City as one of the key players in several of the most embarrassing and badly managed deals in investment banking history”. Investors lost hand over fist in Eurotunnel. His revenue forecasts were, in his own words, “completely potty”. At Euro Disney, as The Telegraph observed, Freud’s financial plans “went so goofy they almost wrecked his career”. He also played a leading role in the rapid expansion of the Warburg Group. It ended in humiliation and collapse. On the Channel Tunnel Rail Link he got his sums wrong by £1.2bn and had to ask the government for it. He was also involved with Railtrack, appearing before MPs to try to explain that particular mess. Nonetheless, he became a government advisor on the successor to Railtrack – Network Rail.

Freud was also duly to be appointed as the key government adviser on ‘welfare reform’ – when John Hutton was at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Tony Blair, still Prime Minister, thought Freud could help him to achieve the kind of fundamental changes to benefits which he wanted as his legacy. This was despite the fact that Freud, in his own words, “didn’t know anything about welfare at all”.

This in itself indicates the actual thrust of the ‘welfare reform’ agenda. In relation to benefits, as in other areas of welfare, the world ‘reform’ is now inextricably linked to privatisation. And Freud’s plan was much less about the detail of the benefits system than it was about opening up the world of ‘welfare to work’ to the “morally ambiguous” demands of business and finance – getting ‘welfare to work’ for them. Freud had a clear track record in packaging and selling things which others, including the public at large, would have to worry about, and pick up the tab for, later. The Independent journalist Dominic Lawson saw it thus:

“Perhaps David Freud’s greatest respray job was the stock market flotation of Eurotunnel. Not only did he come up with a clever way to make shares in Eurotunnel plc seem more than a wing-and-a-prayer speculation, he managed to flog the stock at the height of the stock market crash of 1987, even if it did involve getting Bob Maxwell to stuff a couple of his tame pension funds with the stuff... With such a reputation for finding gold in a mound of silage, it was not particularly surprising that John Hutton, the Work and Pension Secretary, should turn to this particular ex-banker when ordered by Tony Blair to come up with something snappy on welfare reform for the prime ministerial legacy.”

[dont_do_it_doug.]

It's such a shame that people like Freud, with obviously high levels of intelligence and (some might say) massive balls, use their brains and their balls for such dastardly deeds. I guess that says more about man kind than any war.

I've got no idea whether he's any good at his current job mind you. Perhaps he's now using his tools for a greater purpose. But I've no idea how he would get a job in government in the first place with his charge sheet. Mental. It's for this very reason I don't worry about politics in the same way any more. I'd walk around in blind panic all the time if I paid it anything more than passing attention.

[snowychap]

David Freud's sterling work with the previous Labour government meant that he jumped ship to the Tories to continue his work in 2009.

He is now Baron Freud, Minister for welfare reform and government spokesperson for the DWP in the Lords.

He also recently had to apologize for an 'inadvertent' error in a foreward he wrote to a recent DWP report which was in no way 'meant to mislead', at all, honestly, cross his heart, &c.

I think he also told a porkie or two to a select committee about rent levels.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

David Freud's sterling work with the previous Labour government meant that he jumped ship to the Tories to continue his work in 2009.

He is now Baron Freud, Minister for welfare reform and government spokesperson for the DWP in the Lords.

He also recently had to apologize for an 'inadvertent' error in a foreward he wrote to a recent DWP report which was in no way 'meant to mislead', at all, honestly, cross his heart, &c.

I think he also told a porkie or two to a select committee about rent levels.

In other words he's a **** gimp.

The problem seems to be not enough "good" people want to get in to politics, so we end up with chumps like this bloke. Don't really know what we can do about it.

[leviramsey]

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.

That doesn't necessarily follow... it's fairly common for mid-level executives to make more than their bosses (hell, if you look at most banks (so we're keeping with the government theme...), the CEO is well down the list of highest paid employees (below whichever traders had good years)).

2008's top earning direct employees of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (nearly all of them are from the UMass system... and unlike most states, the football and basketball coaches are well down the list)