Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Apparently coppers removing copies of Private Eye from stores

 

 

Rumours, I add, that have yet to be substantiated.

[villaajax]

I wondered why my copy didn't turn up today...

[drat01]

Paul Lewis ‏@paullewismoney 14m

VAT costs £60 on a typical dual fuel energy bill and brings in around £1.5bn for Treasury. So a 10% rise is a £150m rise for govt, approx.

[bickster]

Anyone familiar with the history of HS1 (the channel tunnel link) will find all the promises and reassurances about HS2 laughable.

 

In 1987 the Tories made the use of public money for the line unlawful. The Tories changed the law in 1996 which allowed the project to go ahead with discretionary tax-payer subsidy. The project got into financial trouble in 1998 and had to be rescued by the government. It was going to be sold to Railtrack but they had financial problems it required further re-structuring. But then Railtrack got into further trouble and sold their interests to Network Rail.

 

The line was sold on a further couple of times; ending up the property of London and Continental Railways.

 

LCR became insolvent in 2009 and the government stepped in.

 

The government then sold £16bn worth of assets for £2.1bn to a bunch of Canadian investors for a 30 year lease.

 

The line reverts back to government ownership after thirty years, when no doubt billions will be spent on repairs and unpgrades, before it is sold at another massive loss to another group of lucky foreigners.

 

So anyone who thinks that HS2 is going to be different and magically succeed where HS1 failed, probably needs their head examined.

 

As ever the media have reduced the debate to simplistic banal idiocy.

To be perfectly honest, anyone who thinks that rail infrastructure should be in private hands doesn't realise its importance to national economic prosperity. It should never be viewed as a way to make money, that in itself is a bonkers idea. The rail network and the franchises that are allowed to run trains upon it should all be in the public domain not private business. Selling off the railways was bonkers, Beeching was bonkers as were lots of the "rationalisations" since. This country really should realise that it is in the country's best interests, whether that be business or the general public, for our railways to be considered a public asset run for the national good. New lines need to be opened, old lines need to be re-opened and other lines need to be simply joined up.

I'll give you an example of bonkers thinking. If I want to go from Preston to Southport I have a number of options by rail, I can go from Southport to Wigan and change for Preston (have a look on a map how daft that route is!) or I can get the same train to Burscough and change at Burscough for Preston, except Burscough has two stations which aren't connected, you have to walk a mile between them. The two lines at Burscough actually cross each other and used to be connected, the cutting and embankment that connected the lines is still there, not built on, it just needs clearing and track relayed, you could then close the two stations and open a new one and have extra trains and increased connectivity. There has been a campaign for years to get this done.

Meanwhile, everyone gets the bus, its quicker!

BBBR

[MakemineVanilla]

 

I've heard economists state that the remarkable post-war economic growth was generated by building the suburbs and road network in America and Europe and that public transport was deliberately run down, in favour of that famous economic stimulant and milch-cow of taxes, the private car.

 

Blaming the railways is probably a bit like blaming the badgers for the TB they caught off the cattle in the first place.

Edited October 29, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

Anyone familiar with the history of HS1 (the channel tunnel link) will find all the promises and reassurances about HS2 laughable.

 

In 1987 the Tories made the use of public money for the line unlawful. The Tories changed the law in 1996 which allowed the project to go ahead with discretionary tax-payer subsidy. The project got into financial trouble in 1998 and had to be rescued by the government. It was going to be sold to Railtrack but they had financial problems it required further re-structuring. But then Railtrack got into further trouble and sold their interests to Network Rail.

 

The line was sold on a further couple of times; ending up the property of London and Continental Railways.

 

LCR became insolvent in 2009 and the government stepped in.

 

The government then sold £16bn worth of assets for £2.1bn to a bunch of Canadian investors for a 30 year lease.

 

The line reverts back to government ownership after thirty years, when no doubt billions will be spent on repairs and unpgrades, before it is sold at another massive loss to another group of lucky foreigners.

 

So anyone who thinks that HS2 is going to be different and magically succeed where HS1 failed, probably needs their head examined.

 

As ever the media have reduced the debate to simplistic banal idiocy.

To be perfectly honest, anyone who thinks that rail infrastructure should be in private hands doesn't realise its importance to national economic prosperity. It should never be viewed as a way to make money, that in itself is a bonkers idea.

Add Water supply, Power Generation and distribution, and a host of other things to public transport, But the idiot thinking is all explained by the Bullshit that is neoclassical economics, but then this made up pile of tripe was never created to make sense (or economics policy that actually worked or models that accurately described how the real world worked) but to validate the redistribution of wealth from the real wealth creators to the financial leeches who contribute nothing and only exist to accumulate unearned wealth

[bickster]

Exactly MB

[MakemineVanilla]

Exactly MB

 

Or more exactly:

 

[drat01]

It seems that Cameron is totally floundering yet again at PMQ's. Say's he has not been asked about the economy when he was asked about energy prices - I suppose he doesn't pay for his fuel bills so it's not classed as an expense?

 

Edit: attacks "green taxes" but then forgets that his GVmt introduced 60% of them - oops

 

Maybe he needs another holiday?

Edited October 30, 2013 by drat01

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

Exactly MB

 

Or more exactly:

 

 

It has been argued that we don't actually run a capitalist system in the true sense anymore, hence the total disregard to the value of peoples savings we currently experience, savings used to be the capital provider in the capitalist system, which was then invested in means of production and infrastructure to provide services to generate wealth and profit, now we have next to free money created which is given away to the already very wealthy who use it to acquire assets to accumulate wealth with no thought to the creation of wealth through real investment in production,

[MakemineVanilla]

I quite agree.

 

That is what Harvey means by government making finance more lucrative than manufacturing.

 

Why invest in capital goods if there is a better return from finance?

 

This is what happened to the American car industry where the financial sector became bigger than the car making part.

[mockingbird_franklin]

latest on  Iain RTU (return to unit) Smith's supreme court ruling on workfare

 

 

October 30, 2013 1:14 pm

UK’s Supreme Court rules ‘workfare’ legally flawed

By Sarah Neville Public Policy Editor

A scheme that requires unemployed people to do unpaid work as a condition of receiving welfare benefits was today ruled legally flawed by the Supreme Court.

A case brought by Cait Reilly, a geology graduate who had given up voluntary work in a museum to stack shelves at Poundland, a discount chain, had turned a spotlight on the government’s use of work experience as part of its welfare-to-work drive.

 

Seen by supporters as an effective way of reconnecting the long-term jobless with the discipline of the labour market, critics said it contravened the human rights act that prohibits forced labour.

Iain Duncan Smith, work and pensions secretary, failed in his attempt to overturn a lower-court ruling that the government should have given more detail of what was expected of claimants.

However Mr Duncan Smith today welcomed the judges’ verdict that the schemes did not amount to “slave labour” and that the government had the right to continue to operate them.

Mr Duncan Smith said: “We are very pleased that the Supreme Court today unanimously upheld our right to require those claiming jobseeker’s allowance to take part in programmes that will help get them into work.”

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burnton unanimously agreed that the 2011 regulations that had implemented the back-to-work schemes gave the unemployed insufficient information, especially about the consequences of refusing to take a job.

The appeal ruling was a victory not only for Ms Reilly, a 24-year-old university graduate from Birmingham, but also Jamieson Wilson, a 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver from Nottingham. Mr Wilson had his entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance removed for six months after he refused to do unpaid work cleaning furniture.

Lawyers for Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson said the immediate effect of the ruling was that all applicants who had their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the schemes were entitled to reclaim it.

However the department for work and pensions immediately disputed this.

It said it was disappointed that the Supreme Court had agreed with the court of appeal that the regulations, which had applied from 2011 until February this year, did not sufficiently describe the relevant schemes “and that our referral letters did not say enough about the activities required”.

However, it said the letters in question were no longer in use and related to a pilot scheme that had finished in July 2012.

It also said it had already dealt with the points raised in the ruling by passing further primary legislation in March this year.

A separate legal challenge has been lodged over this new legislation, which is now undergoing a judicial review. But the department said it was “very confident of its validity”.

Public Interest Lawyers, a law firm, said the government’s aim had been to retrospectively “make lawful what the appeal court declared unlawful” in order to avoid having to make payments to people who had been unlawfully sanctioned – a bill they suggested could run to millions of pounds.

Carla Davidson, associate in the employment, reward and immigration department at Lewis Silkin, said: “While this decision may be seen as a victory for those who opposed the back to work schemes, the long-term impact is currently unclear.

She added: “This ruling is embarrassing for the government, in that it has provided another opportunity for critics of unpaid work schemes to air their views on the importance of paying workers fairly.”

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88c00cee-4159-11e3-b064-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2jDbjTfw3

Edited October 30, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[Kingfisher]

It's got to be the lowest of the low hasn't it, making unemployed people, in a recession, work for their benefits. It's bad without context, but when it's put in context of the governments attitude to bankers and big business and the current job market it really is on a whole new level of vileness.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Apparently coppers removing copies of Private Eye from stores

 

 

Rumours, I add, that have yet to be substantiated.

on the upcoming witch trial

 

REVEALED – the criteria for potential jurors in the Brooks/Coulson trial

30 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by Tom Pride in cynicism

 

(satire?)

In order to avoid bias against the defendants, the judge in the Brooks/Coulson trial has set strict criteria for potential jurors to be selected as one of the final twelve members of the jury.

Here are the ten criteria in full:

1) Potential jurors should have absolutely no prior knowledge of the Sun newspaper or have any opinion at all about said publication.

2) Potential jurors should have absolutely no prior knowledge of Rupert Murdoch or have any opinion at all about said person.

3) Potential jurors should have absolutely no prior knowledge of David Cameron or have any opinion at all about said Prime Minister.

4) Potential jurors should not be from Liverpool.

5) Potential jurors should not be related to anyone from Liverpool.

6) Potential jurors should not be acquainted with anyone from Liverpool.

7)  Potential jurors should never have heard of Liverpool.

8) Potential jurors should have absolutely no prior knowledge of the ninety-six men, women and children who died as a result of police incompetence at Hillsborough and who were then disgustingly smeared for 24 years by the publication the defendants worked for – or have an opinion about said disgusting behaviour.

9) Potential jurors should have absolutely no prior knowledge of a bunch of overpaid tabloid vultures hacking into a murdered little girl’s phone just to beat their equally ethically destitute rivals to a story – or have an opinion about said behaviour.

10) Potential jurors should have absolutely no prior knowledge of the moral turpitude of a bunch of clearings in the woods being prepared to sell their own grandmothers in order to claw their way up one more rung of the corporate ladder that leads to the top of the Godless, rat-infested moral wasteland that is News International  - or have an opinion about said behaviour.

 

I’m sure it won’t be too hard to find twelve people in the UK who fulfil those criteria.

 

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/revealed-the-criteria-for-potential-jurors-in-the-brookscoulson-trial/

(satire?)

[snowychap]

'Switching' is a 'Tory policy' is it? A policy? Rather than just a bit of advice? Bloody hell.

What a pillock Cameron is.

 

Also, Tristram Hunt's getting shown up as a bit of a Jeremy Hunt on Newsnight.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

You really shouldn't call your child Tristam.

[snowychap]

You really shouldn't call your child Tristam.

Unless you're Walter Shandy.

[mockingbird_franklin]

It's got to be the lowest of the low hasn't it, making unemployed people, in a recession, work for their benefits. It's bad without context, but when it's put in context of the governments attitude to bankers and big business and the current job market it really is on a whole new level of vileness.

It gets worse than that, with proposals to make sick and disabled people work for their benefits too, with proposals for residential workfare (i.e. workhouses) for some.

[MakemineVanilla]

Dave Cameron was born a great toff

At the peasants he always does scoff

Those scrounging rough oiks

Should get on their boiks

He said, elbowing his way to the trough

[StigVillan]

Cameron is a dick head.

End of poem.