Bolitics The New Condem Government

[PauloBarnesi]

Can anyone tell me any good news?

I did find this amusing

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies

[drat01]

I'd also include our nuclear and defence research infrastructure in that basket of critical infrastructure, both at the cutting edge of technology and both flogged off by Labour. Christ, Brown even decided to flog the port of Dover!

Let's stop pretending it's only the Tories who pawn the family silver and condemn them all for selling assets that actually belong to the tax payer.

:-) - Oh dear Jon

The party of "privatisation" is certainly that of the Tory variety as much as you try and deflect away from it. Whilst I agree that certain areas of society should remain in public ownership, to try and then spread blame by saying the port of Dover is similar is somewhat far fetched.

[drat01]

Can anyone tell me any good news?

I did find this amusing

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies

There is a lot of good news out there Paul.

Ken Clarke to close 6 jails

Cameron has employed "stylists" on public money for him and his helpers

The archbishop of Canterbury attacks te Gvmt policy on Big Society and cuts

So prisoner numbers must be going down

We must have more money than people are saying else why would we be paying for "stylists"

The Church are proving themselves to have no idea about the real world.

[Awol]

I'd also include our nuclear and defence research infrastructure in that basket of critical infrastructure, both at the cutting edge of technology and both flogged off by Labour. Christ, Brown even decided to flog the port of Dover!

Let's stop pretending it's only the Tories who pawn the family silver and condemn them all for selling assets that actually belong to the tax payer.

:-) - Oh dear Jon

The party of "privatisation" is certainly that of the Tory variety as much as you try and deflect away from it. Whilst I agree that certain areas of society should remain in public ownership, to try and then spread blame by saying the port of Dover is similar is somewhat far fetched.

"Oh dear" my arse. If you are denying that Labour continued the Tories policy of privatisation then you're living in political la la land.

At least we seem to agree that it was/is a bad thing, even if you won't recognise Labour's role in the process.

[PauloBarnesi]

Just a quick question; how many of these nationalised industries that have been privatised started off as private companies? What actually is the ‘perfect’ state for any of these companies?

[peterms]

Just a quick question; how many of these nationalised industries that have been privatised started off as private companies? What actually is the ‘perfect’ state for any of these companies?

I would imagine they all started as private, without checking.

The perfect state? Interesting question. I would collectivise them all, and have gulags for the resisters and lickspittle running dogs of cap...sorry, bit of a slip there.

I would see state ownership as best for natural monopolies like transport infrastructure, utilities and so on, as well as those things Jon mentions as being to do with security. Beyond that, I think the last couple of years have made a very strong case for taking over the banks, not that there's any real political appetite for doing so.

There are sectors where it's clear the market isn't going to provide an adequate response, housing poorer people being an obvious one, so you end up with a combination of private and public provision, and the issue there is to ensure adequate choice in the social sector (so it can't be a residual sector of last resort, or else it becomes stigmatised and spirals downward, which seems to be the current aim).

Then there's areas like health, where the private sector classically tries to cherry-pick the most profitable parts, and poach staff without proper recompense for the high training costs which we have met publicly. If private firms are to coexist alongside the public sector in areas like this, then we need to make pretty sure they are not leeching of the rest of us, or else again we end up with hidden transfers of resources from poor to rich.

[Awol]

I would see state ownership as best for natural monopolies like transport infrastructure, utilities and so on, as well as those things Jon mentions as being to do with security. Beyond that, I think the last couple of years have made a very strong case for taking over the banks, not that there's any real political appetite for doing so.

There are sectors where it's clear the market isn't going to provide an adequate response, housing poorer people being an obvious one, so you end up with a combination of private and public provision, and the issue there is to ensure adequate choice in the social sector (so it can't be a residual sector of last resort, or else it becomes stigmatised and spirals downward, which seems to be the current aim).

Then there's areas like health, where the private sector classically tries to cherry-pick the most profitable parts, and poach staff without proper recompense for the high training costs which we have met publicly. If private firms are to coexist alongside the public sector in areas like this, then we need to make pretty sure they are not leeching of the rest of us, or else again we end up with hidden transfers of resources from poor to rich.

Don't disagree with any of that with the exception of the bank issue, although there is certainly room for a state owned high street bank (independent though, not a commercial enterprise that we've bailed out), maybe combined with the Post Office and BoE to provide the widest possible geographical service.

The difficulty with the public sector is efficient management, something the state seems particularly poor at executing - although I accept that many of their private sector successors have faired little better in that department.

[peterms]

Unemployed told: do four weeks of unpaid work or lose your benefits.What on earth do they think they're doing?

The unemployed will be ordered to do periods of compulsory full-time work in the community or be stripped of their benefits under controversial American-style plans to slash the number of people without jobs.

The proposals, in a white paper on welfare reform to be unveiled this week, are part of a radical government agenda aimed at cutting the £190bn-a-year welfare bill and breaking what the coalition now calls the "habit of worklessness".

The measures will be announced to parliament by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, as part of what he will describe as a new "contract" with the 1.4 million people on jobseekers' allowance. The government's side of the bargain will be the promise of a new "universal credit", to replace all existing benefits, that will ensure it always pays to work rather than stay on welfare.

In return, where advisers believe a jobseeker would benefit from experiencing the "habits and routines" of working life, an unemployed person will be told to take up "mandatory work activity" of at least 30 hours a week for a four-week period. If they refuse or fail to complete the programme their jobseeker's allowance payments, currently £50.95 a week for those under 25 and £64.30 for those over 25, could be stopped for at least three months.

The Department for Work and Pensions plans to contract private providers to organise the placements with charities, voluntary organisations and companies. An insider close to the discussions said: "We know there are still some jobseekers who need an extra push to get them into the mindset of being in the working environment and an opportunity to experience that environment.

"This is all about getting them back into a working routine which, in turn, makes them a much more appealing prospect for an employer looking to fill a vacancy, and more confident when they enter the workplace. The goal is to break into the habit of worklessness."

Sanctions – including removal of benefit – currently exist if people refuse to go on training courses or fail to turn up to job interviews, but they are rarely used.

The plans stop short of systems used in the US since the 1990s under which benefits can be "time limited", meaning all payments end after a defined period. But they draw heavily on American attempts to change public attitudes to welfare and to change the perception that welfare is an option for life.

Last night the shadow work and pensions secretary, Douglas Alexander, suggested government policy on job creation was reducing people's chances of finding work: "The Tories have just abolished the future jobs fund, which offered real work and real hope to young people. If you examine the spending review then changes such as cuts to working tax credit are actually removing incentives to get people into work. What they don't seem to get about their welfare agenda is that without work it won't work."

Anne Begg, Labour MP and chair of the Commons select committee for work and pensions, said that many unemployed people already had a work record and carrying out work experience would give them less time to search for a job. "The problem is finding a job," she added. "One of the reasons the last government moved away from work placements and towards things such as the Future Jobs Fund was that it actually acted as a hindrance to them looking for work."

The Observer has also learned that ministers have abolished the Social Exclusion Taskforce, which was based in the Cabinet Office and co-ordinated activity across departments to drive out marginalisation in society. Documents show that the unit has become a part of "Big Society, Policy and Analysis".

Jon Trickett, a shadow minister focusing on social exclusion, reacted angrily, saying that ministers should "hang their heads in shame". Whitehall sources insisted the work would carry on, but more of it would take place in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Naomi Eisenstadt, who was director of the taskforce until last year and is now an academic at Oxford University, said the shift was worrying. "I don't think it is significant in terms of the name – call it a banana – who cares? What does worry me is why they are not using the civil servants who were doing the work on deep disadvantage in the Cabinet Office and exploiting their expertise," she said.

Eisenstadt added that it would be a concern if the government believed the "big society" could take the place of government intervention. "If you speak to any minister I am sure they would agree that civil society is one part of the solution, but not the whole solution," she said.

The proposals come as the government prepares to unveil policy plans across a number of departments. Tomorrow, the Ministry of Justice will reveal that thousands of criminals with serious mental illnesses or drug addictions will no longer be sent to prison but will instead be offered "voluntary" treatment in hospital. Documents will show that offenders will be free to walk away from NHS units because officials believe it would be pointless to create duplicate prisons in the community. "While treatment is voluntary, offenders in these programmes will be expected to engage, be motivated to change and to comply with the tough requirements of their community order," they will say.

Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, said: "Serious criminals who pose a threat to the public will always be kept locked up, but in every prison there are also people who ought to be receiving treatment for mental illness rather than housed with other criminals. The public would be better protected if they could receive that treatment in a more suitable setting."

[Demitri_C]

and whats wrong with that peter? if they are fit enough to work at least we keep them active and doing something?

its only 30hours a week so they still ahve plenty of time to look for a job too

[peterms]

and whats wrong with that peter? if they are fit enough to work at least we keep them active and doing something?

its only 30hours a week so they still ahve plenty of time to look for a job too

Several things, in my view.

Community service is a penal alternative to custody, not a means of helping unemployed people.

It is presented as a way of helping people get some experience which will help in finding work, but of course as it is being used as a sanction, and will therefore become something which stigmatises, not strengthens a CV.

It won't be of use to real employers, who won't welcome having to supervise people who really don't want to be there - and who would want to be placed on forced community service?

And as Rowan Willams has said, it will drive people into a feeling of vulnerability and possibly despair.

Let's be clear about this, it's an idea whose value is about building a narrative that people on benefits are workshy scroungers, and this narrative is part of the government's agenda, trying to build some political support for the cuts they are making. It's got nothing whatever to do with helping people into work; the obvious way of doing that would be to take action to create jobs, rather than destroy jobs as they are doing. Instead of doing that, they are throwing literally billions at the financiers, socialising the losses they have made while allowing them to keep whatever gains they make, and along the way massively damaging the living standards of vast numbers of people to pay for this largesse.

If someone had suggested a few years ago that such a thing would happen, and would not be met by mass riots, I just wouldn't have believed it. Thing is, it's things like this that help to persuade people that unemployment is really something caused by the unemployed, rather than a direct and avoidable outcome of government policy.

[snowychap]

The unemployed will be ordered to do periods of compulsory full-time work in the community or be stripped of their benefits under controversial American-style plans to slash the number of people without jobs.

The full proposals will be interesting.

Is this not a kind of Flexible New Deal on steroids?

I wonder what colour jumpsuits they will be forced to wear?

Will they have 'community payback' written on them?

These bits are rather interesting:

...where advisers believe a jobseeker would benefit from experiencing the "habits and routines" of working life, an unemployed person will be told to take up "mandatory work activity" of at least 30 hours a week for a four-week period.

...

The Department for Work and Pensions plans to contract private providers to organise the placements with charities, voluntary organisations and companies.

So private companies will get to pick and choose whether a sanction is imposed and they will look at lining up these unpaid workers for charities, voluntary organiztions and companies?

Perhaps 'community kickback' might be more appropriate.

Edit: 'mandatory work activity'? We could call it 'job club', I suppose. :winkold:

[Demitri_C]

i think people are just looking for excuses, they wont set out to humilate people to wear uniforms like prisoners do

i would be suprised if it was the kind of work like scrubbing graffiti off walls. im speculating here but could involve working at old peopls homes. i guess we will have to wait for more details before we praise or critise this idea as they havent gone into significant detail

[snowychap]

they wont set out to humilate people to wear uniforms like prisoners do

My comment about jumpsuits was meant to be slightly facetious.

i would be suprised if it was the kind of work like scrubbing graffiti off walls....

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a wide variety of work from graffiti scrubbing to working in old people's homes to being part of a (no cost) labour force for profit making enterprises to being the reserve army of the mandatorily underpaid.

[TheDon]

These new plans sound an awful lot like what happens already.

There's already a mandatory work related activity as part of new deal, which is also 4 weeks, and also 30 hours a week. So what exactly are they suggesting here?

They already outsource new deal out to private companies, and those companies are meant to find the placements (many of them just sell the labour on and run their own sweat shops).

I'm struggling to see what they're actually going to do here other than exactly what's already being done?

[Condimentalist]

and whats wrong with that peter? if they are fit enough to work at least we keep them active and doing something?

its only 30hours a week so they still ahve plenty of time to look for a job too

Several things, in my view.

Community service is a penal alternative to custody, not a means of helping unemployed people.

It is presented as a way of helping people get some experience which will help in finding work, but of course as it is being used as a sanction, and will therefore become something which stigmatises, not strengthens a CV.

It won't be of use to real employers, who won't welcome having to supervise people who really don't want to be there - and who would want to be placed on forced community service?

And as Rowan Willams has said, it will drive people into a feeling of vulnerability and possibly despair.

Let's be clear about this, it's an idea whose value is about building a narrative that people on benefits are workshy scroungers, and this narrative is part of the government's agenda, trying to build some political support for the cuts they are making. It's got nothing whatever to do with helping people into work; the obvious way of doing that would be to take action to create jobs, rather than destroy jobs as they are doing. Instead of doing that, they are throwing literally billions at the financiers, socialising the losses they have made while allowing them to keep whatever gains they make, and along the way massively damaging the living standards of vast numbers of people to pay for this largesse.

If someone had suggested a few years ago that such a thing would happen, and would not be met by mass riots, I just wouldn't have believed it. Thing is, it's things like this that help to persuade people that unemployment is really something caused by the unemployed, rather than a direct and avoidable outcome of government policy.

Well said.

[Awol]

It's got nothing whatever to do with helping people into work; the obvious way of doing that would be to take action to create jobs, rather than destroy jobs as they are doing.

A few points on that, Peter. Why during the booms years were we importing a million + people from across Europe to come in and fill job vacancies (at all levels of qualifications) when we had so many unemployed of our own? Is it possible that a core of those on unemployment benefits simply can't be hooped to go for work? I doubt I'm alone in thinking that those same people have effectively taken the urine out of those who do work. If that premise is correct then how would the government creating more jobs actually help?

That moves us along to whether it is actually the government's role to create jobs. Presumably you must mean doing so through the public sector (?) which is quite widely recognised now as being simply unaffordable at its pre-election levels. What they can do is try to make the conditions as attractive as possible for the private sector to grow, but whether they are achieving that yet remains to be seen. The only way to sustain the vast amounts of people in direct pay of the state is to hike taxes even further, again targeting the people in the wealth creating sector - if we accept tax take paid by public sector workers is effectively recycled wealth that has been created in the private sector.

Instead of doing that, they are throwing literally billions at the financiers, socialising the losses they have made while allowing them to keep whatever gains they make, and along the way massively damaging the living standards of vast numbers of people to pay for this largesse.

You do remember that there's been an election since the Labour Government carried out this policy?

Thing is, it's things like this that help to persuade people that unemployment is really something caused by the unemployed, rather than a direct and avoidable outcome of government policy.

Unemployment in the private sector was caused by the economy contracting by about 6% of GDP between 2007-09 (from memory so that figure may not be exact), leading to a consequent reduction in the size of the public sector because the country can no longer afford to sustain so many economically unproductive people. I'm not saying the public sector are all wasters or anything remotely like that, but I am saying that they don't create wealth and that our total income ultimately dictates what funds UKPLC has to spend.

The alternative is running a structural deficit through good times and bad and getting ever further into debt. Effectively the same policy that was pursued by the Iron Chancellor of 'golden rule' fame under the previous government. The reality is we've never been able to afford the level of spending that was built up over the last decade without borrowing, therefore the public sector was grown to an unsustainable level.

I accept that sometimes it will be necessary to run a deficit, but we have to face up to the fact that the economy will not reach it's previous size for some time to come and we are/were under real pressure from the people who lend to us to reduce our structural deficit significantly - just like America. We are trying to cut our cloth to fit, the Amercians are not and favour the printing presses. Time will tell which strategy is the right one but personally I suspect it is route that we are taking. I don't welcome the thought of people losing their jobs on an individual level, but do believe it's better for the national body to lose a few fingers or toes than risk an infection that means we lose a limb later.

In summary then to say it is a "direct and avoidable outcome of government policy" is wrong imo and totally neglects the bigger questions, which are conveniently glossed over with cries of 'evil Tories'.

The world economy now appears to be in a lot more trouble than most people accept and that is beyond our powers to control. All the government can do is try to get the economy ship shape as soon as possible to try and weather that storm. That translates directly into reducing the structural deficit and building external confidence in UKPLC in the shortest possible timeframe.

The last government didn't prepare in the good times (beacuse they believed they'd abolished the global economic cycle) and we got into serious trouble. From the perspective of what is happening now it's worth considering the psychological impact that witnessing that in opposition had on this government - particularly if they now think they see more clouds on the horizon. If they do then I happen to think they are right.

[drat01]

"Oh dear" my arse. If you are denying that Labour continued the Tories policy of privatisation then you're living in political la la land.

At least we seem to agree that it was/is a bad thing, even if you won't recognise Labour's role in the process.

Why party privatised the following?

Steel

Water

BT

Gas

Rail

BA

BAA

Rolls Royce

When the family silver was sold

Cable & Wireless: Oct 81

Amersham International: Feb 82

Britoil: Nov 82

Associated British Ports: Feb 83

Enterprise Oil: Feb 84

Jaguar: July 84

British Telecom: Nov 84

British Gas: Dec 86

British Airways: Feb 87

Rolls-Royce: May 87

BAA: July 87

British Steel: Dec 88

Regional water companies: Dec 89

Electricity distribution companies: Dec 90

link

Yes ALL gvmts privatise industries but there has traditionally been one party that has been massive supporters of that idea and that is the Tory party

[Awol]

"Oh dear" my arse. If you are denying that Labour continued the Tories policy of privatisation then you're living in political la la land.

At least we seem to agree that it was/is a bad thing, even if you won't recognise Labour's role in the process.

Why party privatised the following?

.......

Yes ALL gvmts privatise industries but there has traditionally been one party that has been massive supporters of that idea and that is the Tory party

So you agree then that Labour continued the Tories policy of privatisation, which is what I was saying? True there was less left to sell by 1997 but then Labour came up with the genius of PFI - essentially the introduction of private capital into the construction and operations of facilities like hospitals, schools, MoD barracks etc. on contracts that Dick Turpin would have considered robbery.

A very neat way of dressing up privatisation and hiding the costs of quick impact projects in the public sector that have to be paid back at many times their actual value by the Treasury.

[drat01]

Jon stop trying to spin things around, as that article clearly states the party that has traditionally been the one that has privatised the big parts of public owned entities is the Tory party. Rightly so that article says selling off the family silver. Your examples are minisclue compared to those sold off by Thatcher et al, The whole principle of this was championed by the Thatcher years, something that Cameron wants a return to.

Its obviously a policy that you are not comfortable with hence your continued attempts to try and deflect "blame" to Labour.

This Gvmt are seemingly intent of resurrecting the speed and magnitude of Thatchers time. What next for them the NHS? or will that be done more by stealth?

[drat01]

Jobs for the boys and girls again - the sheer cheek and insulting behaviour of this bunch of arrogant pricks is amazing

So we have personal photographers on the payroll of Gvmt. We now have "stylists"?

Link

Mr 'Pimp My Party' - the latest (publicly funded) member of David Cameron's Team Vanity

A trendy Tory aide who devised a ‘Pimp My Party’ internet game for David Cameron has been given a £50,000-a-year post at No 10.

Former Conservative candidate Rishi Saha is one of a growing number of members of the Camerons’ inner circle to be parachuted into plum jobs at Downing Street on the public payroll.

Mr Saha, 30, is No 10’s ‘head of new media’ with control over its website, the Prime Minister’s ‘Webcameron’ and other internet projects.

The disclosure of Mr Saha’s role follows controversy over the appointment of Andrew Parsons as Mr Cameron’s ‘vanity photographer’ – a proposal first revealed by The Mail on Sunday in June.

This newspaper can also disclose that Mr Cameron sent a video message to Mr Parsons when he got married before the Election.

Tory sources say the Prime Minister has talked fondly of Mr Parsons, saying: ‘Andy is a friend.’

An insider that added the video message was a lighthearted thing in which Mr Cameron gave his good wishes to Andy and his bride.

The ever-expanding ‘Cameron clique’ at No 10 and the Cabinet Office, paid for by taxpayers, has led to mounting criticism from Labour and, privately, from some Tory MPs who say the Camerons are falling into the same trap as the image-fixated Blairs.

Mr Cameron has got around strict curbs on the number of hangers-on given Civil Service positions by granting them short-term contracts – a ploy that means they bypass the competitive Whitehall application process.

The clique includes video camera expert Nicky Woodhouse, Anna-Maren Ashford – the ‘branding’ consultant who devised the Tories’ tree logo – and Isabel Spearman, former PR adviser to handbag designer Anya Hindmarch.

The role of Ms Spearman –known as ‘Bells’ and employed as a ‘special adviser’, a job that usually focuses on policy matters – involves choosing outfits for Samantha Cameron and organising Downing Street functions.

Mr Saha is a protege of Mr Cameron’s image guru Steve Hilton.

The pair were the driving force behind the campaign to ditch the Tories’ old-fashioned style. Shaven-headed Mr Saha, who wears designer jackets, is said to model himself on Hilton.

Mr Saha was director of the modernising ‘Wave’ network of young Tories, entering politics after working for youth charities.

He once promoted hip-hop nights at clubs in Nottingham and transformed the stuffy Tory Winter Ball, moving its venue from the staid Grosvenor House hotel on London’s Park Lane to Old Billingsgate and promoting it with the slogan ‘So hip it hurts’.

Mr Saha stood for the Tories in Brent South in the 2005 General Election, coming third in a seat won easily by Labour.

His projects include the ‘Pimp My Party’ online game, a parody of the MTV show Pimp My Ride.

It presented the pre-Cameron Tory Party as a ‘clapped-out old banger’ and challenged activists to update its image.

Mr Saha said of the game: ‘Young people do not give a stuff. They are not interested in politics. This is kind of fun and wacky and left-field so it gets people interested.’

He was also linked to the Tories’ infamous ‘Tosser’ campaign in 2006.

It consisted of a series of online ads on the perils of personal debt. The campaign was a flop.

A Tory spokesman defended the appointments: ‘All governments do this. These people have worked for the party and do invaluable work for the Government. Rishi Saha is an invaluable member of the team.

‘It is absurd to call Anna-Maren Ashford a stylist. She works as a policy adviser. And Ms Spearman works incredibly hard for Mrs Cameron. She is her only adviser – Sarah Brown had three people working for her.’

We all know how much the current set of politicians love the idea of publicity and marketing, but when they talk bollox about being in this together and then we see this, you can see why so many are now getting really pissed off with this