Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Well what’s the alternative system that will work? Do we abandon our whole system, which seems to be based on some form of capitalism, to something else untested?

Spending what you can afford, not what you can borrow, is not untested, is it?

The generation of people that broke away from the 'don't go into debt' mould and went along with Thatcherism (oh, but she's so evil!) and borrowed heaps of money in their own self interest, and completely ignored the knock on effects of the future, are to blame.

Of course it's easy to assign blame in hindsight, it must've been mighty appealing to borrow some money with the promise of paying it back later, in order to buy a lovely new house.

It's too easy to sit and blame the bankers, politicians etc, the reality of the situation is a generation of self-interested types created the environment for greedy chaps to benefit, and no-one kept them in check because they were all enjoying the short-term benefits of a new car.

[PauloBarnesi]

So what you are actually saying is that you do want capitalism, but one with a degree of control and government involvement and regulation.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Aye, and a change in mindset away from money being everything. Reward hard working chaps with power within a more... devolved system of government. Say for example Mr X worked hard at becoming a lawyer for 30+ years, instead of having a load of money thrown in his direction, he should be able to change things at a local level, having been elected in a non-party democratic process.

So, in essence, while you have a regulated (to stop greedy chaps from gambling with pensions etc.) capitalist system in place to allow for social mobilty and the buying of ipods, you need to take the focus away from money = power and position to knowledge = power and position. You could argue that people are rewarded for hard work and knowledge in the current system, but money is still the go-between. You can't do anything meaningful without promising Y amount of money to some bloke in a suit.

Summat like that anyway.

[snowychap]

More arbeit news

Emma Harrison, the prime minister's former family tsar who quit amid allegations of "fat cat" pay and fraud, received around £1.7m over two years from leasing out properties, including her family stately home, to the firm she built on the back of state-funded welfare-to-work programmes.

Records show that money was funnelled into two companies and a pension fund in which Harrison or her husband has a controlling interest.

The couple were paid £316,000 for allowing A4e to use their country home for board meetings and other events. Emma and James Harrison were paid another £1.4m for leasing out two other properties to Emma Harrison's own firm, including its Sheffield headquarters.

The payments were in addition to Emma Harrison's £365,000 annual salary and the payment of an £8.6m shares dividend, bringing the total earnings of the Harrisons, who share their 20-bedroom home, Thornbridge Hall in Derbyshire, with 11 friends, to some £11m between 2009 and 2011.

The revelations will be a considerable embarrassment to the government, which still has £478m worth of Work Programme contracts with A4e.

The firm, which earned around £180m last year wholly from providing public services, was handed responsibility for getting the long-term unemployed back into work in five parts of the country, under the coalition government's scheme. It is also the preferred bidder for a £15m prisoner rehabilitation contract, although last night government sources suggested it could backtrack on the proposed deal.

Emma Harrison, who established A4e 25 years ago, resigned as the prime minister's family tsar on Thursday after it emerged that four of her former employees had been arrested on suspicion of fraud.

...more on link

[peterms]

Well what’s the alternative system that will work? Do we abandon our whole system, which seems to be based on some form of capitalism, to something else untested?

Spending what you can afford, not what you can borrow, is not untested, is it?

The generation of people that broke away from the 'don't go into debt' mould and went along with Thatcherism (oh, but she's so evil!) and borrowed heaps of money in their own self interest, and completely ignored the knock on effects of the future, are to blame.

Of course it's easy to assign blame in hindsight, it must've been mighty appealing to borrow some money with the promise of paying it back later, in order to buy a lovely new house.

It's too easy to sit and blame the bankers, politicians etc, the reality of the situation is a generation of self-interested types created the environment for greedy chaps to benefit, and no-one kept them in check because they were all enjoying the short-term benefits of a new car.

This sounds like blaming the victims.

There's an entire industry spending billions on working out how to hoodwink people into doing things which are against their longer-term interest, whether that is taking out mortgages, buying obsolescent shite, investing in fossil fuels or whatever, so perhaps we shouldn't entirely blame the people who've been suckered in? In fact, perhaps we shouldn't blame them at all.

[peterms]

If you read what I was commenting on pay for a mess the rich created, you will see that I was commenting on a simplification of this complicated issue.

Was it multi millionaires (or how do we define the rich?) who created this unholy mess? Well I am sure some of them were involved, the reality is that this was created by people who aspired to it, and people who were blinded by these riches. Its not just the rich.

I did not say they had equal culpability; you have surmised that yourself. It seems to me that we all want to find someone or some group of people to blame, but its just not as simple as that.

Yes, I read it. And I read your reply, which I quote in full below.

pay for a mess the rich created.

But it wasn’t just the rich was it? It was a combination of people with money, people who didn’t have money and borrowed more money than they could ever pay back, banks leveraged up to the eye balls, governments encouraging it, politicians encouraging, academics and economists making up rubbish and lots of people looking the other way...

And in the end we will all pay for it, and those who really need protecting will suffer, but don’t believe it was just a small group of “rich” people that caused it, and don’t believe it was a small group of people who were at the trough.

There were indeed more than the rich around the trough. However, a few had their snouts deep in the spoils, and a far larger number were snuffling round beneath for any droppings.

Again, to give them equal responsibility for what happened, and is still happening, is ludicrous and morally obscene.

All debt is created by lenders, not debtors, and it's always been this way. It's not that they're quietly going about their business when someone comes and begs to borrow money - they offer loans at punitive rates when they see that people need them.

The financial crisis was just one expression of this, but it's not a new thing. What is new, it seems to me, is the idea that it's the fault of the wage slaves, rather than the people running the show.

[VILLAFC2000]

If you read what I was commenting on pay for a mess the rich created, you will see that I was commenting on a simplification of this complicated issue.

Was it multi millionaires (or how do we define the rich?) who created this unholy mess? Well I am sure some of them were involved, the reality is that this was created by people who aspired to it, and people who were blinded by these riches. Its not just the rich.

I did not say they had equal culpability; you have surmised that yourself. It seems to me that we all want to find someone or some group of people to blame, but its just not as simple as that.

Yes, I read it. And I read your reply, which I quote in full below.

pay for a mess the rich created.

But it wasn’t just the rich was it? It was a combination of people with money, people who didn’t have money and borrowed more money than they could ever pay back, banks leveraged up to the eye balls, governments encouraging it, politicians encouraging, academics and economists making up rubbish and lots of people looking the other way...

And in the end we will all pay for it, and those who really need protecting will suffer, but don’t believe it was just a small group of “rich” people that caused it, and don’t believe it was a small group of people who were at the trough.

There were indeed more than the rich around the trough. However, a few had their snouts deep in the spoils, and a far larger number were snuffling round beneath for any droppings.

Again, to give them equal responsibility for what happened, and is still happening, is ludicrous and morally obscene.

All debt is created by lenders, not debtors, and it's always been this way. It's not that they're quietly going about their business when someone comes and begs to borrow money - they offer loans at punitive rates when they see that people need them.

The financial crisis was just one expression of this, but it's not a new thing. What is new, it seems to me, is the idea that it's the fault of the wage slaves, rather than the people running the show.

No I think it was definitely the Dinner Ladies to blame - I mean remeber the Daily Mail did say that they had gold plated pensions that dont even compare to a bankers bonus.

Not to forget the teachers who made the deficit with their Teaching.What do you mean it was all the bankers fault - people did not have to take the money if they did not want it.....!

lol (Lots of sarcasm)

[drat01]

It seems that another Cameron appointment (and friend) has been shown up for what they are really about?

link

A4e fraud allegations known before David Cameron picked 'families champion'

David Cameron is facing fresh questions over the choice of Emma Harrison as his “families champion” as it emerged the Government knew about fraud allegations against her firm at the time.

....

I wonder who he / they will blame for this?

[VILLAFC2000]

It seems that another Cameron appointment (and friend) has been shown up for what they are really about?

link

A4e fraud allegations known before David Cameron picked 'families champion'

David Cameron is facing fresh questions over the choice of Emma Harrison as his “families champion” as it emerged the Government knew about fraud allegations against her firm at the time.

....

Dave, Dave, Dave.

Superb - We expect nothing less from him.

I wonder who he / they will blame for this?

[ender4]

Barclays £500m tax loophole closed by Treasury in rare retrospective action

The Treasury has rushed in legislation to close down two "aggressive" tax avoidance schemes that a high-street bank had disclosed to HM Revenue and Customs in an effort to avoid tax.

As it announced highly unusual steps to take retrospective action to shut down the "highly abusive" schemes, the Treasury refused to the name the bank involved, although the Guardian understands that it is Barclays. The bank has refused to comment.

The Treasury also said that the move would prevent "further billions of tax from being lost and maintain fairness in the tax system".

The detail was complex, but could have implications for any bank that is buying back its own debt – which has fallen in value because of the financial crisis – and making a profit as a result.

One of the schemes being shut down allowed the bank to avoid paying corporation tax on the profit it makes from buying back its own debt.

The second scheme involves authorised investment funds where the bank aims to convert non-taxable income into an amount carrying a repayable tax credit to secure a repayment from the exchequer even though tax has not been paid.

Barclays is among dozens of banks across Europe that have bought back debt – it started doing so on 5 December. The Treasury has said that the retrospective element of its changes would date back to the start of December.

tax loophole

well done HMRC.

back-dated as well - showing a bit of balls!

[peterms]

tax loophole

well done HMRC.

back-dated as well - showing a bit of balls!

Barclays again. One more in a series of tiny misjudgements.

The time for apologies and remorse from banks is over, said Barclays's chief executive Bob Diamond the other day. He was referring to the banks' role in the financial crisis, but his underlings at Barclays Capital may have interpreted his words too enthusiastically.

The investment banking unit was fined £1.1m by the FSA for mixing its own money with that of its clients for eight years. Mingling is a serious sin in the regulator's book since it can cause huge problems in the event of a bank's collapse. The sums involved at BarCap were hardly trivial: the biggest sum at risk at any one time was £752m. A public apology from BarCap to affected clients would surely have been in order.

Instead, the statement merely accentuated the positive aspects of the case: BarCap corrected the error itself; it did not profit from it; and no clients lost money. All those statements are correct. Even so, BarCap should have said sorry – the retail division remembered to do so when fined £7.7m last week for mis-selling high-risk investment funds.

[Risso]

The retrospective element is nothing to congratulate them about. Rewriting history so that which was lawful now isn't? Bollocks to that, where will it end?

[TrentVilla]

The retrospective element is nothing to congratulate them about. Rewriting history so that which was lawful now isn't? Bollocks to that, where will it end?

Absolutely it is a very dangerous thing to start doing.

[PauloBarnesi]

Give the Scots Govt money for one thing, and hey presto its spent on something else...

Train upgrade on hold as promised £50m diverted

Tom Gordon

Scottish Political Editor

MINISTERS have been accused of backsliding on plans to upgrade the famous overnight rail service from London to the Highlands after diverting £50million earmarked for the project to Scottish Water.

The Treasury gave an extra £50m to the Scottish Government to improve the ageing Caledonian Sleeper fleet this year, on condition it was matched by £50m from Edinburgh.

The SNP welcomed the funding, while insisting the Treasury had to "keep its promise". Dave Thompson, SNP MSP for Skye & Lochaber, claimed the arrangement showed "the SNP is dedicated to improving Caledonian Sleeper services".

However, the Scottish Government has rerouted the money elsewhere "in the short term", with no firm timetable for fixing the trains.

A report by Holyrood's information centre, which goes before MSPs this week, reveals Finance Secretary John Swinney moved the cash to Scottish Water's investment programme last month as part of the 2011-12 Spring Budget Revision.

The revision, issued at the end of January, stated an additional £50m would go to Scottish Water "to accelerate capital expenditure", but did not identify the source of the money. Ministers made no public statement.

The parliament's report explains, for the first time, that there was "a transfer of the funding allocated to the Caledonian Sleeper service, which was given a "ring-fenced" £50m in the UK Government's Autumn Statement in November 2011.

The report added: "After discussions the Scottish Government and HM Treasury agreed a programme for future investment in the Caledonian Sleeper and the £50m, received in 2011-12 for this purpose, will be utilised in the short term by Scottish Water to reprioritise its investment programme.

"The Caledonian Sleeper service money has essentially been borrowed by Scottish Water. Information regarding the time-frame for spending on the Caledonian Sleeper has yet to be detailed."

Just last week, Transport Minister Keith Brown tabled a parliamentary amendment urging MSPs to recognise the SNP Government's "commitment to invest a minimum of £50m in new sleeper trains".

Operated by ScotRail, the sleeper is one of only two overnight services in the UK. It leaves London twice daily six days a week, with one service going to Glasgow and one to Edinburgh. The Edinburgh train splits into three parts which go to Inverness, Aberdeen and Fort William.

The Government admits accommodation on the 1970s rolling stock "falls short of the expectations of today's passenger" and needs upgrading.

Permanent Secretary Sir Peter Housden, Scotland's top civil servant, recently likened it to "a ghost train at a fair, with shrieks and lurches and terrible scraping across the track".

Labour MSP Richard Baker denounced the lack of transparency on the funding switch and called on Mr Brown to make a statement to parliament.

He said: "It's not good enough to say this is a short-term measure without saying when the long-term funding will kick in. This is another example of the Government's lack of transparency and gives rise to more concerns about the future of this vital service."

Alex Johnston, the Tory transport spokesman, said: "This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Scottish Government has been found wanting."

A Scottish Government spokesman said parliamentary officials had been informed of the change, and added the service would be enhanced using £50m from London and £50m from Edinburgh "over the coming years".

He added: "We have agreed with HM Treasury that, whilst the improvements process is underway, the £50m received in 2011-12 will be utilised in the short-term by Scottish Water with funding to Scottish Water adjusted in future years to fund the Caledonian Sleeper service improvement programme."

[PauloBarnesi]

Union leader threatens public sector strikes to disrupt London Olympics

Government attacks on public sector justify targeting 2012 Games, says Unite general secretary Len McCluskey

Share 164 reddit this

Comments (664)

Andrew Sparrow and Dan Milmo

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 February 2012 18.12 GMT

Article history

Commuters queue for buses outside Liverpool Street station in London during a tube strike in 2010. Industrial action during the Olympics could threaten considerable disruption. Photograph: Chris Helgren/Reuters

Employees should consider using strike action to disrupt the Olympics as part of their campaign against the government's spending cuts, the leader of Britain's biggest union has declared.

In an interview with the Guardian, Len McCluskey, the leader of Unite, said attacks on public sector workers were "so deep and ideological" that targeting the Games would be justified. The call came as the RMT union increased the pressure on the capital's mayor, Boris Johnson, over delivering a strike-free event by declaring a formal dispute after rejecting an Olympics pay deal for London Underground staff.

"If the Olympics provide us with an opportunity, then that's exactly one that we should be looking at," said McCluskey. He also said that any attempt by ministers to tighten anti-strike legislation would lead to unions deliberately breaking the law. Government plans to cut the value of public sector pensions prompted the biggest strike for three decades in November last year. Although some unions have scaled back their opposition to the proposals, McCluskey said industrial action would "drag on and on" and that it would involve "all forms of different protest and action".

That included possibly hitting the Olympics, he said: "The attacks that are being launched on public sector workers at the moment are so deep and ideological that the idea the world should arrive in London and have these wonderful Olympic Games as though everything is nice and rosy in the garden is unthinkable.

"Our very way of life is being attacked. By then this crazy health and social care bill may have been passed, so we are looking at the privatisation of our National Health Service. I believe the unions, and the general community, have got every right to be out protesting."

McCluskey was speaking in general terms and he admitted Unite did not at this stage have specific plans for action during the Olympics. But he said his union represented London's 28,000 bus drivers and staff, who are involved in their own row about extra payments during the Olympics. The bus workers want £500 in supplementary pay for the Games, in line with deals at Network Rail, Virgin Trains and London Overground. "They will be examining what leverage points we have, and the Olympics will clearly come into play," he said.

McCluskey said that, because of the seriousness of the issues at stake, he was encouraging the public to engage in "all forms of civil disobedience within the law" in the campaign against cuts.

"Our parents and our grandparents, having defeated fascism in Europe, came back determined to build a land fit for heroes. They gave us the welfare state, the National Health Service, universal education. All of that is being attacked," he said. "I, for one, am not prepared to stand by and have my children or grandchildren say to me, what did you do when this was being taken away from us?"

The Olympics were a focal point, he said. "If there is a protest, then the purpose of protest is to bring your grievances to the attention of as many people as possible."

Britain's largest rail union escalated its dispute with Transport for London (TfL) on Tuesday. It declared a formal dispute over Olympics pay for tube staff and announced a ballot of administrative staff at TfL over the right to take leave during the Games.

It is the underground dispute that threatens to cause Johnson the biggest problem. The RMT represents about 10,000 of the tube's 18,000 staff, from drivers to platform staff, and any industrial action during the Games would be highly disruptive.

A spokesman for the RMT stressed the union wanted a settlement despite turning down an offer last month of £500, including £100 for meeting customer satisfaction targets and an extra £20 a shift.

"The formal move to declare a trade dispute gives us scope to declare a ballot [for industrial action] if we choose. We want to get this settled," said the RMT spokesman.

On Thursday underground bosses and the RMT are due to hold talks at the conciliation service Acas, raising hopes of a deal.

The next strike over public sector pensions is expected on 28 March, with Unite's health workers, civil servants in the Public and Commercial Services union and the National Union of Teachers contemplating combined action. More than one million public sector workers took part in the national walkout on 30 November but numbers could be lower next month because the largest public sector union, Unison, is focusing on settlement talks.

The PCS has mooted rolling programmes of action by specific groups of workers, such as call centre staff, or work-to-rule campaigns in which employees carry out no more work than the bare minimum stipulated in their contracts.

Last week a meeting of the British Medical Association, the union representing 130,000 doctors and medical students, decided to ballot for industrial action short of a strike over NHS pension reforms after eight out of 10 members rejected the changes.

Some Conservatives have already been arguing that the government should tighten the strike laws in response to what they perceive as militant unionism represented by leaders such as McCluskey and his ally, the PCS general secretary, Mark Serwotka.

One idea, backed by Johnson and not wholly ruled out by ministers, is for unions to be prohibited from striking unless 50% of their members back strike action – not just 50% of those voting. In his interview McCluskey signalled that unions would refuse to comply with such a law, even if that meant calling strikes illegally. "If [ministers] make these attacks against us, trying to limit the type of strike action … if they push us outside the law, they are going to have to live with the consequences of that," he said. "Because if we need to break the law in order to defend what are our basic human rights – right of association – then we will do that."

McCluskey also used the interview to say that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls should "worry less" about fiscal credibility.

Instead of trying to impress "the chattering classes" by embracing the case for austerity, McCluskey said the Labour leader and his shadow chancellor should concentrate on winning credibility with voters by proposing alternatives to "the fear and the misery and the gloom and the despair" represented by the coalition.

Union leader threatens public sector strikes to disrupt London Olympics

Would be a major mistake to strike during the Olympics imo.

[tonyh29]

I'd say outside of it's members the Unions have very little public support ... strikes during the Olympics will see that little support dwindle to zero support I should think ..

any action plays straight into the Tory partys hands and puts Ed in another awkward position ... does he back the people that put him in this job ..or does he go with the vote winner and condemn the strike action

[Eames]

^^ Yep agreed.

It would be a totally selfish action by a gaggle of self interested clearings in the woods.

Would be worth it to watch Eddy squirm over that one though.

[snowychap]

I'd say outside of it's members the Unions have very little publc support

Do you have any decent evidence to support that or is it just an anti-union prejudiced view?

[colhint]

I'd say outside of it's members the Unions have very little publc support

Do you have any decent evidence to support that or is it just an anti-union prejudiced view?

The way I see it is, as Union membership itself is falling, then it would be difficult for me to believe that support for unions amongst the general public, wouldn't follow the same trend.

[PauloBarnesi]

isn’t union membership actually rising after years of decline?