Release the Hounds
Nelson may have said that England expects every man to do his duty, but whereas an act of self-sacrifice for the good of one’s country may be a noble gesture at a time of war, when it comes to a peacetime polling booth, self-interest plays a more decisive part in the thought processes than considerations for the nation. Yes, we may take a look at the wider picture in the days leading up to D-Day, but ultimately we want the administration that we will personally prosper under. It’s only natural, of course. I wouldn’t expect a Surrey stockbroker to vote according to who will best benefit a single-mother on the check-out at a Gateshead branch of Poundland any more than I would expect her to vote for whichever party will ensure he isn’t saddled with too much inheritance tax. Besides, the notion of voting is sold to us via party political broadcasts as a way in which we can improve our lot rather than someone else’s.
The perennial problem of distinguishing between Labour and the Conservatives is one both the SNP and UKIP have capitalised on recently, and it is true that the two alleged extremes of the political spectrum in this country have been engaged in an illicit affair of a kind that Lady Chatterley and her gardener would be familiar with for far longer than is ever admitted, certainly by those involved. This unhealthy union is not even necessarily a case of opposites attracting, more a begrudging recognition of shared aims that official ideology doesn’t acknowledge. Fifty years ago, the break with the old-school patrician Toryism that the election of Harold Wilson as PM brought about saw the Conservatives choose a grammar-school graduate to pitch against the avuncular Huddersfield pipe-smoker in a deliberate attempt to replicate the same popular appeal.
The Labour/Tory incest-fest was rekindled by the success of Tony Blair, in part attributable to the fact that New Labour often proved to be more reactionary and right-wing than any Tory administration would have been, ingratiating themselves with the bankers and big business as well as encouraging the stealthy privatisation of public services in a way even Thatcher was hesitant to. They had cherry-picked the most contentious Tory policies and got away with it thanks to headline-grabbing distractions such as the Good Friday Agreement, the Minimum Wage and Civil Partnerships. This left the Tories in a quandary for the best part of a decade. Their thunder had been stolen by the enemy, and their eventual response (as it had been in 1965) was to elect a party leader modelled on the man who had condemned them to the opposition benches.
The lack of distinguishing features between the two parties had only ever increased during the Blair & Brown years, with the expenses’ scandal publicly confirming what many members of the electorate had long suspected, that Labour in power had proven to be largely composed of the same self-serving agents of avarice that had previously been associated with John Major’s administration. The Dark Lord Mandelson had famously declared ‘We’re all Thatcherites now’ and, amongst the many actions he undertook that vindicated this declaration, he had planned the controversial privatisation of the Royal Mail that went ahead once Labour were out of office again. Wilson begat Heath, Thatcher begat Blair, and Blair begat Cameron.
Midway through Blair’s reign, Labour inherited the ‘Nasty Party’ mantle, especially when it came to increasingly draconian legislation regarding civil liberties, the surveillance state and reforms of the legal system. One might almost speculate they were the tenants of a rented property they knew they would shortly have to vacate and had decided to redecorate the premises before moving out so that the incoming tenants wouldn’t have to. The Tories would have happily moved in and found the decor very much to their taste had their inability to cover the rent not necessitated a flat-share with the Lib Dems. Now, however, the Tories can finally afford the rent without the need to curb their less agreeable aspects to accommodate their flatmate; they can finally do what the hell they like and redesign their home without having to consider anyone else’s opinion.
There is a grain of truth in the claims that the Liberal Democrats blocked some of the more extreme ambitions of the Tories, yet the electorate have held Nick Clegg’s hapless posse responsible for those that made it through, and Clegg and his party have paid the price whilst their senior partners have emerged stronger than ever. The late Conservative Peer, Lord Boothby, once said ‘the Tory Party is ruthless’, and even though the context then was of how they will dispense with an ineffective leader, the ruthlessness he spoke of was in evidence last Thursday night as far as their Coalition comrades were concerned.
It’s tempting to generalise and come to the conclusion that any individual entering public office, whatever colours are nailed to their mast, does so solely from a self-interested desire to feather their nest. The examples are all-too abundant, yet for every crate of rotten apples there will be a decent constituency MP in it for all the right reasons. These rarely ascend to the Cabinet table and therefore receive little exposure beyond their constituencies and it is instead the power-hungry megalomaniacs who come to represent their entire profession. However, if the aforementioned megalomaniacs instigate policies we ourselves will do alright by, then we will overlook the policies we know have the potential to place others in peril.
Had Labour won the Election, I think there are some issues they would have tackled differently, but there was never any indication given that they would have modified the planned welfare cuts, for example; and I’ve a feeling that many policies poised to be unleashed by the Tories would have progressed more or less identically had Red Ed been resident on Downing Street. The ‘tough love’ approach pioneered by Thatcher when it came to those on the bottom rungs of society’s ladder is admired by many and can have positive results. It’s an approach not dissimilar to the half-time bollocking given by a football coach whose team are losing; but while Alex Ferguson’s infamous ‘hairdryer’ tactic can work wonders when it comes to kicking a ball around a pitch for ninety minutes, I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea to apply it to someone who genuinely needs the help of the state in a way that will be unimaginable to the majority of the electorate. Announcing every alteration intended to improve the lot of the less fortunate in the manner of a threat doesn’t help either.
Just as every bent MP can tar all of his honest colleagues with the same toxic brush, every mobility-scooter fatty claiming they cannot walk before being captured on camera turning out for their local Sunday League side solidifies the public perception of anyone faced with little option but to claim some form of benefit because a physical or mental disability leaves them incapable of earning a living as being a Jeremy Kyle contestant. This then gives the party in power carte-blanche to reserve their most vicious cuts for a tiny minority of the population they’ve successfully demonised because they know their efforts will be applauded; and whilst many who have lived their adult lives as indolent charlatans rightly deserve outing, the welfare Hoover also threatens to suck-up those who cannot survive without state intervention. I’ve no doubt the already-wealthy, the upwardly mobile and the middle-income earners will be fine for the next five years, but I fear for the few who aren’t in a position to join those ranks, whether afflicted by illness, poverty or wrongful conviction. And I don’t believe the Tories do.
Petunia Winegum
-
May 11, 2015 at 9:54 am -
Well said.
-
May 11, 2015 at 10:05 am -
I was listening to the wireless the other night and an earnest local Councillor was telling the story of the calls he’d had to take from some constituents just the night before. they had phoned him up to tell him of the terrible events at the care home their aged mother was in. Staff had failed to go near her for over 12 hours, and she had lain in a bed soaked with urine… Urine. Urine. He savoured the word several times. This was already a sign that within 12 hours of the election the cruel Tories were already being crueller than ever. Two things struck me. First that the caring profession hadn’t been caring for 12 hours and second, that by definition the family who were complaining to their local Council presumably hadn’t cared for even longer. Whisper it softly of course but British people just wanna have fun and aged incontinent grannies just get in the way and it’s much easier to look to the government than to take a long look in the mirror.
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:23 pm -
It reminds me of the piece on the local news in the 90s an old lady in Warrington who lived in a council flat passed away and her death was not noticed for three weeks. Her children and twenty seven grandchildren complained that the council had not found her before, somehow the 27 grandkids not one of them had thought to go and see her in that three weeks and somehow it was the council’s fault. As you say blame it on the uncaring Tories as the family don’t care so they may as well blame someone else.
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 10:11 am -
Well said indeed, the voting system doesnt help either, but having said that no matter who you vote for the government always gets in! They could end up as a minority party eventually, if any of them die, retire or defect.
-
May 11, 2015 at 10:37 am -
“And whilst many who have lived their adult lives as indolent charlatans rightly deserve outing, the welfare Hoover also threatens to suck-up those who cannot survive without state intervention. I’ve no doubt the already-wealthy, the upwardly mobile and the middle-income earners will be fine for the next five years, but I fear for the few who aren’t in a position to join those ranks, whether afflicted by illness, poverty or wrongful conviction. And I don’t believe the Tories do.”
I think that puts it very well. In the end, those who “play” the system always seem to come out very well, whilst the most vulnerable, the most deserving, are often the very people who find things toughest. Just an impression, but I am pretty sure it’s right.
-
May 11, 2015 at 10:47 am -
I guess that’s why the Tories are always so keen on “welfare reform”, so that the system stops condoning the Jerry Springer generations.
-
May 12, 2015 at 1:14 am -
“…those who “play” the system always seem to come out very well, whilst the most vulnerable, the most deserving, are often the very people who find things toughest…”
That’s not an impression: it’s an irrefutable fact.
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 11:04 am -
One of the problems with the Welfare Debate is that it’s usually conducted in a fact-free environment. In the first instance, I just do not accept that any senior politician doesn’t care about helping people that need it. I think the implication that they don’t care is a Great Big Lie. I also think that the welfare system has become dysfunctional, complicated and bloated, with too much being handed out to some who don’t really need it, or to some (probably not as many as the likes of the Daily Fail would have us believe) who find it easier to keep claiming than look at alternative ways of supporting themselves, or to those who know how to work the system to their advantage. Simplifying things will help reduce misuse and outright fraud (which I’m fairly sure is also not all that common, either).
Do we need a system to help those in genuine need? Yes, of course we do. Nobody suggests otherwise. Should it be fairer and more humane than the workhouse? Of course it should. Should it be so complex and poorly managed that it becomes a free-for-all for anybody cynical enough to exploit it? Of course not. Should it be as fair as any system can be to those needing it’s support, and those paying for it? Yes, of course. Should it be possible to be better off on benefits than in work, if you’re fit and able to work? I would suggest not – it’s an insult to those working and contributing through tax. Should those who don’t actually need them get benefits? Most people, I would suggest, would think not. Should politicians be able to manipulate the benefits system to create a slew of claimants through tax credits, thus cynically using the system to create a cadre of client voters? I don’t think so – not honourable at all.
I think Ian Duncan-Smith is a decent, fair and honourable man. I don’t think he wants to leave people in genuine need or penuary. I wishhim well in reforming the complex, bloated and dysfunctional system built up by Gordon Brown to generate client voters by doling out tax credits, and returning to what a welfare system was originally intended to be – help for those who need it, willingly funded by those of us who know that sometime, we might need it.
-
May 11, 2015 at 11:30 am -
Good God!
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:20 pm -
Do you think that the last Labour government left a proper, decent and sensible welfare system, fair to both claimants and taxpayers?
-
May 11, 2015 at 1:03 pm -
I am NOT against ridding our system of those who are abusing it 100%, but, do you have ANY idea what it’s like living on Benefits? I’m a Carer, and trust me, it’s grim. I was always given exemption from Council Tax, due to being on such a low income. Now, I have to go hand in bowl, begging for the expemtion, having to fill in the most personal details of my life, every penny that comes in, every penny that goes out, how much I spend on birthdays, christmas, gambling (?), drinking (?), holidays ( WHAT is a HOLIDAY?!!) food, chemist items, etc.etc.etc….Then, I have to sit and wait to see what happens….
When I had to go to the Council Offices to meet them last year (almost£5 on the bus, return) whilst waiting my turn, I sat next to a dear lady who’d have ALL her Benefits stopped, months back. She was disabled and you could see she was sick and ill….Tears ran down her face as she told me the reason for this. She, like me, doesn’t drive, and, like me, wouldn’t be able to afford to, even if she could…so, she uses the bus. She has a bus pass. This means she cannot use the bus until after 9.30am in the morning.
She’d had an ATOS appoiment, made too early for her to get there, as she cannot afford a normal bus fare (tell me about it!)….so, she missed her appointment. She’d told them about this, but they ignored her. Another was made, again, FAR too early for her to be able to use her free bus pass. On this second occasion, they stopped ALL her benefits.
She had to turn to the charity of her friends (she had no children) whom she was living with for the moment, they feeding her, keeping her warm etc…
I cannot tell you the ANGER that rose inside me! I went into that room with STEAM coming out of my ears! The three people sitting opposite me just shifted around a little and could not meet my eyes half the time!
I’ve cared for my ex-mother-in-law for FIFTEEN YEARS now, and have thus saved this poxy country, which once I loved with all my heart, probably around £1MILLION or more in Care Home Fees!
For THIS, I am treated like some slug of a scrounger as they spin us into oblivion in their EVIL plans, without thought, without conscience, without CARE!
Duncan Smith is a SOCIOPATH, a vile little creep, in my opinion, smarting from having to step down as leader of his party, and now determined to go down in history as ‘The Man Who Rid Britain Of Its’ Welfare System’ He has NO CONCERN in ANY WAY for The People, none, not a drop, not a speck, not the most miniscule particle of guilt inside his cold, cold heart!!
There are people out here KILLING themselves due to what he is doing!
Please, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
May 11, 2015 at 2:51 pm -
There is clearly a problem in the way that modern familial society has broken into splinters and the days of cousins etc. around the corner or in the next street who could step into the breaches and fill the gaps co-operatively have gone. My grandmother had two of four children who remained in the area, who shared visiting duties and kept an eye on the daily professional carer as she slipped into dotage, but both said it was hard work and now looking back, can hardly believe how they coped (but they did). My own mother only has one of three children in a geographical position to so do, if the need arises. I recall as a small child, my parents rented rooms off a couple. They had moved into their mother’s house and as part of the deal, they looked after her. Granny was blind I recall and used to just sit in the kitchen all day, but of course in those days her daughter was a “housewife” and so effectively the old girl had 24 hr attention. It does puzzle me why the generations don’t “co-operate” more (including grandchildren who these days seem to have practically nothing to do with their granny generation once grown-up). I keep reading of folk having to sell a house to pay for an oldie’s care home fees of a grand a month or summat and always think, why don’t they cut a deal and move in with the oldie till they snuff it and then keep the property as recompense. I do wonder if people feel incapable of this nowadays because they are told their aged relative must have “professional care”. I guess if the youngsters have a living of their own, they find it easier to pay the state to solve the problem and perhaps in the case of splintered families there is no other option. I had one acquaintance who retired to Spain leaving a younger sibling living with her and undertaking to be “the carer”, but the sibling had sold up, disappeared with the proceeds and the mother was dumped in a state home. My acquaintance came back from Spain, and bought a place back here so his mum could see her last days out with him. I admired his decision enormously but am hoping against hope that I won’t be faced with the same sort of test of my mettle.
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:00 pm -
May 11, 2015 at 4:03 pm -
There’s also the issue of mobility. In past generations, most folk lived out their lives within close range of their origins but now, with education and job mobility, up to worldwide, few families continue to live within walking distance, so late-life support is considered to be impractical.
Mrs Mudplugger moved 30 miles away from her home when we married so, when her mother was widowed 15 years ago, that soon became an increasing support issue. We solved it by moving her into a bungalow half a mile from where we live – she’s been there for 10 years now and thrives, despite her growing frailty at 88, with ever-increasing attendance and support (30+ hours a week), but it’s on the doorstep, on-tap and ‘en famille’ – I suppose some would label us ‘carers’ in social-speak, but we just see it as family duty. If it ever becomes necessary to move her in with us, that’s what will happen. It is, however, massively disruptive to our own lives and will remain so for as long as it takes – that’s life.
Most either wouldn’t think of doing that or are financially unable to do it – we are probably the last generation which accepts full responsibility, both financial and physical, for the care of our own aged family members and makes arrangements to do it, however personally inconvenient that may be.
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 6:06 pm -
Whilst I feel for you in the circumstances you outline, I feel you should consider why we got to the position where welfare reform became a pressing political necessity.
The left leaning councils with their ‘benefits entitlement officers’ , encouraging everyone they came into contact with, to claim every possible benefit, were largely responsible for spreading the benefits’ pie too thinly. Thus ensuring there were less funds available for those those genuinely in need -
May 12, 2015 at 8:46 pm -
First world problems…
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 1:08 pm -
AND….meanwhile, whilst I was being forced to BEG for financial help, that POXY TORY MAYOR of my town, was busy spending a further £12,000 on fecking PALM TREES, having already spent £20,000 on just ONE alone! He owns 15 houses, 2 fields and a couple of garages! I went on BBC Radio Devon and suggested that he alongside his row of poxy palm trees, he could have us Peasants who can’t take much more, embalmed and placed in rows at the entrance to Torquay. Tories? I SPIT upon them ALL!
-
May 11, 2015 at 1:39 pm -
Take your case to your MP. If you have genuinely been unfairly treated, that’s probably the quickest way to fair redress and reassessment.
As to hating Tories, I think you are flat wong. I do not believe that ANY politician goes into public office with the intention of deliberately leaving people in penuary. However, all politicians have a responsibility to balance public spending against what the public will contribute in taxation, and the previous Labour government left a welfare system that it had manipulated for political ends. I repeat my question – do you believe that the last Labour government left a proper, decent and sensible welfare system, fair to both claimants and taxpayers?
-
May 11, 2015 at 1:41 pm -
‘wrong’, not ‘wong’
-
May 11, 2015 at 2:53 pm -
wronger not wonga
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 1:57 pm -
This is not a way a civilised system (any system) should work. It rather re-emphasises the point I made above, namely, that in any system it’s the weakest who get “stiffed” whilst the undeserving who know how to play the system seem to prosper.
-
May 11, 2015 at 2:12 pm -
IDS like Maude and Greyling is scum. All of them are parasites who –on Minister/MP wages and fiddling –cost far more than a clutch of benefit claimants and do far more harm to this nation in general. No money for legal aid–in a society run by law-dog parasites (nothing personal Anna) but £80,000,000,000 to piss away on the toy-train set.
As for the Welfare State –it was created to make large segments of society dependant on the state. Welfare was never anything to do with it. Add to that the economic failure and bungling of taking on far more people as clients than they can afford and then crashing the economy–which is where we are headed.
“I do not believe that ANY politician goes into public office with the intention of deliberately leaving people in penuary.”
They may not have that intention Engineer. But they just don’t give a shit one way or the other.-
May 11, 2015 at 2:45 pm -
If they don’t give a shit one way or the other, why on earth do they carry on doing the job? I’m sure IDS could find himself a well-paid sinecure in the City now he has a lengthy political CV and a bulging book of contacts. He’s chosen not to; he’s even continued in a job that gets him little but public venom. Why? Maybe he does care about trying to make the system better.
-
May 11, 2015 at 2:56 pm -
I think Cameron has realised that aspect and this is why he has said after this one, he won’t be back. ‘Twas always said we will get the leaders we deserve, so the nastiness from the electorate and the media nowadays probably does mean that increasingly only a real bastard would want the job and he would be a bastard who couldn’t even hack it in the world of business most likely. A bit like they used to say those who can do, those who can’t teach… now they will become politicians.
-
May 11, 2015 at 7:24 pm -
Because they are ego-men who love the feeling that they are powerful and important and what they say goes–no matter what anyone else wants. Libido Dominandum (sic–and it is) is the phrase I believe. The lust to dominate and dictate to others. The cash is just a secondary reason.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 11:31 am -
While I agree with everything except your last paragraph, the problem comes, as far as sickness/disability is concerned, with definition. Who gets to decide what sickness/disability/inability to work is? When parameters are narrowed (as with PIP replacing DLA), with the sole intention of saving 20% of the bill (as quoted by George Osborne), without stating why the target is 20% (neither fraud nor error with DLA payments have ever been estimated to be that high) it means that people end up having their status and lives arbitrarily re-designated. That is where the sense of injustice arises.
Ian Duncan Smith does not care what the actual results of his “reforms” are, as evidenced by his performance in tv interviews and debates or in committee hearings in Parliament – his “beliefs” are enough for him.
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:26 pm -
On disability living allowance, my views might be coloured by family experience. A close family member was a long-term recipient, quite fairly so for many years. Following a dramatic improvement in life brought about by an organ transplant, the payments continued, though they were not ‘needed’ – the household income more than covered the bills, and left a good surplus for life’s luxuries. Family member, following assessment, lost DLA, and bitterly resented it; said family member didn’t really ‘need’ it any more, though.
Single cases make bad generalisations, but I try to make the point about ‘need’ rather than ‘ nice to have’.
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:32 pm -
In that case, surely “need” is assessed by means testing? (currently DLA/PIP are available regardless of means, existing as both an in-work and out-of-work benefit).Do you think David Cameron should have claimed DLA for a member of his family?
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:44 pm -
No, I don’t. I don’t think you do, either.
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:57 pm -
I agree. But I think the fact that he has led the country to believe he did, and now his government is making it harder to claim for families who are not as well off as his own, feeds the sense of “Tory unfairness”.
-
May 11, 2015 at 2:33 pm -
Presumably when he sends his kids to private school and his wife to private hospitals, everyone will congratulate him for not being a burden on the state then…
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:24 pm -
I wouldn’t really expect anything else of him… if he can afford it, why wouldn’t he?
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:28 pm -
But will he be congratulated was the point…
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:35 pm -
I think I am not making myself clear- by claiming a benefit and then restricting access to that same benefit for people who are not as well off as himself, he is not doing the cause of welfare “reform” any good and actually causing harm to some; by using private healthcare or education facilities, he is not harming anyone, but neither is he doing any good. Healthcare and education are not rationed (in theory). Why would he be either castigated or congratulated?
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:49 pm -
Presumably once he has changed the entitlement he will no longer be claiming it either, so what is the point? That a “benefit” once granted then becomes a “right” and can never be repealed? Like a Contract of Employment? That sort of negotiating position generally leads to the firm becoming bankrupt or the employee being “let go”.
-
May 11, 2015 at 4:00 pm -
He does not get the benefit now because whichever relative he claimed it for is no longer alive.
And are you actually arguing against contracts? While they may be time limited and are then re-negotiated that is fine, if it is made clear. When a person pays national insurance or tax they expect the rules under which they were given a benefit to be maintained for as long as the claim applies. To change them half way through is a diktat and the whiff of tyranny. Even Peter Lilley recognised that when he introduced Incapacity Benefit – he did not force those already on Sickness and.or Invalidity Benefit to change over. New rules should apply to new claimants.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 6:17 pm -
Pretty much everyone you ask knows one or more similar cases and that is the problem that those in genuine need often overlook.
Typical local example, a lady who fainted several times, was signed off as requiring full time ‘care’. Her husband, a not overly hardworking hgv driver, thus became her paid carer. He now has a very nice sideline , undeclared , cash only, obviously, looking after gardens / dog sitting / goforing , for the owners of large houses in the village.
It’s this sort of abuse that drags the whole system down.
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:47 pm -
I think you’ve covered most of it in a fair & balanced way, Engineer.
My view is that the massive generation of welfare clients, coupled with the active encouragement of biblical levels of immigration, have been hugely damaging to our country.
The failure to get the millions of our ‘economically inactive’ natives engaged in the world of work was a huge failure, yet what could be more important than engaging all people in a rewarding, hopefully self sustaining life style?
But I’m prejudiced, seeing the yellow perils as posh Labour, the Blues more posh Labour. SNP & Greens as loony left.
No offence intended.-
May 11, 2015 at 6:17 pm -
Thank you, binao.
It’s a little ironic that the welfare and immigration strategies (the latter particularly) put in place by Labour to entrench it’s vote have come back to bite it so deeply on the ar*e. Both are in effect a direct attack on their traditional supporters, the ordinary working man and woman.
-
May 11, 2015 at 8:05 pm -
Ah, but after the getting of power, socialism is an international project; the electorate are just a means to that end. They don’t matter.
And if we don’t have downtrodden masses any more, some other totem can be polished & presented for worship to ensnare the gullible.
Or maybe they’re just fools deluded by a lack of exposure to real life. Deluded into thinking their ideas for a social paradise of fairness & redistribution will actually work. Or in the late Miliband Minor’s case, even pre-distribution. Whatever that was.
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 11:05 am -
Nature is spontaneous, and, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, random; this means there are limits to predicting, and understanding, natural phenomena. Whereas evil is designed, it has no bounds to its ‘perfection’, hence is completely understandable, and therefore predictable.
When politicians contrive their manifestos, they do so out of a sense of rightness, which is voted upon in an act of compliance. This is the route to positive feedback, which takes us away from the ‘regression toward the mean’, and away from spontaneous nature.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions, because we do what is right, and it’s right because we do it.
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:37 pm -
or as Supertramp put it, in the bad old 1970’s:
So you think your schooling’s phoney
I guess it’s hard not to agree
You say it all depends on money
And who is in your family tree
Right, you’re bloody well right
you know you got a right to say
Right, you’re bloody well right
you know you got a right to say
Ha-ha you’re bloody well right
you know you’re right to say
Yeah-yeah you’re bloody well right
you know you’re right to say
Me, I don’t care anyway!
Write your problems down in detail
Take them to a higher place
You’ve had your cry – no, I should say wail
In the meantime hush your face
Right, quite right, you’re bloody well right…
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 11:36 am -
Engineer – I salute you. I’d add to the list of willing funders those who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they don’t and won’t need state benefits, but who contribute because it is their moral duty. False benefits claimants piss over these people more egregiously than they do over people who contribute in the knowledge of their future reliance on the system.
As for me, I can’t see why I should fund all manner of people’s perks, even if they are genuinely needy – only their basic needs – and those I believe fervently do properly fall into the remit of the benefits system.
We also have to understand that the existence of a safety net sometimes encourages people into foolhardy behaviour.
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:42 pm -
Thank you. I’ve no wish to see anybody left in need, but like you I’ve no wish to fund the cynical few who currently exploit the system, either. Fair to both those who need and those who fund is what I’d like to see.
-
May 11, 2015 at 4:50 pm -
I’m with you 100% on this one Engineer – you put the case extremely well, if I may say so?
-
May 11, 2015 at 6:13 pm -
Thank you. I’m not usually that coherent!
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 11:42 am -
Giving the public advice on benefits for 14 years was difficult and demanding, because the whole system was so complex. The labour government came into power and sucked up to everyone by handing out benefits/tax credits to those way up the earning scale. Those who got far more money than I ever had earned as a midwife in an exacting job. Our honorary Insolvency adviser and our very expert and very disabled benefits expert both said that these new labour benefits cut far too deep into society, fostering a feeling of over entitlement and dependency. Then along came the taxman bogey to demand money back for mistaken claims or their overpayments! It had already been observed that the taxman was not the right minded organisation to go after benefits debts. So it turned out with distressed persons ,not previously entitled to benefits, begging for help. We saw allsorts, the distressed deserving. Easy to deal with in the main. The bossy, rude, demanding ever present, undeserving ones with thick case files. Some very manipulative persons indeed. Not supposed to be judgemental, but impossible in the face of the demanding ones. Extend that group to the country as a whole and it adds up to lots of manipulative cheats extracting undeserved money and services. One nasty far left demo has already kicked off. I suspect there will be a lot more placarding , yelling and bawling about this and that from those willing to call Tories nasty, class ridden and excluding.
-
May 11, 2015 at 11:51 am -
The EU loving mass immigration mass debt Party got in . Take your pick on the name . Liebour or Tory will do it . Another triumph for FPTP and a “canny” electorate . Savers must be delighted with the zero returns on their savings and still pay tax on the meager interest as well ! You could not make it up .
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:01 pm -
I sat in a pub the other week behind a table full of possible kippers. They were discussing the layabout culture of their semi-rural vicinity – some harsher-worded than others, but what became apparent as I listened to the vagaries of their chat was that they had grudging respect for the immigrants but untold contempt for their local Benefit bretheren, who because they lived in a non-urban environment they all seemed to know; not only as individuals but also their parents and perhaps even grand-parents. It was noticeable that prison, expensive tattoos and multiple parent combinations plus “they have never worked in their lives”, seemed to be the general tenor of the ire. Thus it seemed that the real “enemy” was their own people and not the “immigrants” at all.
-
May 12, 2015 at 1:34 am -
Not too surprising: I firmly believe in the value and necessity of a safety net: but I am aware of those in my own village who decide upon it as a career path.
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:29 pm -
I read an article in the Radio Times the other day about a woman on benefits. She had brought up six children and now lived on her own in a 4 bedroomed council house. The interesting thing (to me), was there was absolutely no mention of the father(s) of these children. Perhaps we should start taking the DNA of all 12-year old boys and tell them come what may, they will be paying for the upbringing of any offspring.
-
May 12, 2015 at 1:39 am -
That was the original stated purpose of the CSA (minus of course, the DNA records). What happened? Our wonderful public servants decided that chasing absentee ‘deadbeat dads’ was too much like hard work, so they jumped on those who had made, and were continuing to make, provisions which were acceptable to all parties – including the courts, and these self-same upstanding public servants set themselves up to be above the courts, and to bleed dry those who were already meeting their obligations just so they could spout how much they were raising in monetary terms.
Sheer sophistry (commonplace amongst the left) at best, devious mendacity at worst.
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 12:57 pm -
Somewhat off-topic but in tune with the notion of letting loose the hounds!
https://twitter.com/hashtag/MichaelGove?src=hash
To all of the floating voters who decided to vote tory this time, you forgot evil #MichaelGove and #DuncanSmith were waiting in the wingsEvil by gad!!… Blow that horn!!
-
May 11, 2015 at 1:01 pm -
I have never understood the dislike of Michael Gove. I find him admirably refreshing (much in the same way as Ken Clarke).
IDS… he reminds me in some weird way of Toad in “Toad of Toad Hall”… but not as likeable.
-
May 11, 2015 at 2:19 pm -
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:25 pm -
Sorry, I didn’t get that at all.
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:31 pm -
Orwell’s ‘1984’ includes ideas of deliberate contradictions, so the populace can never fully question things. Also there is 5 minutes hate every morning, so the people can focus. I mention ‘Big Sister’ instead of Big Brother, because we are in a Marxist-Feminist dystopic present.
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:37 pm -
OK… I’m still not clear why that applies to my comment, to which you made that reply.
-
May 11, 2015 at 4:01 pm -
I wasn’t aware it was about your comment, as I have no reason to be aware of you.
-
May 11, 2015 at 4:07 pm -
OK, fair enough, it just followed my comment in the pattern of the thread as a reply.
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 4:31 pm -
Michael Gove? Well here, in his own words, is the case for the prosecution.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9487882/in-defence-of-christianity/Reminds me of someone else whose name escapes me….
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:05 pm -
I don’t dislike Christians for being Christian, I dislike them when they try to impose their orthodoxies on me, which I believe is true of the person you are thinking about (if we are remembering the same person). Gove voted for gay marriage and would appear to be less dogmatic but more resilient in his belief. I have no problem with that.
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:11 pm -
@windsock We may not be remembering the same person at all! You mistook the irony.
I wasn’t accusing you of being ‘anti-Christian’ merely pointing out one of the reasons he is so loathed – being prepared to state and stand up for his beliefs.
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:20 pm -
@windsock And BTW IDS is catholic but voted for gay marriage – but will the same religious tolerance be extended to Andy Burnham in the Labour leadership contest – who is also catholic and voted for gay marriage?
Burnham was against IVF for lesbians – surely a toxic blot on his copybook in those realms.
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:22 pm -
Perhaps he thought it stood for In vagina fertilisation.
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:31 pm -
@moor Do you mean wriggle room?
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:32 pm -
I wouldn’t vote Labour with Burnham in charge. He came fourth out of five in 2010 – why would he be considered any better now? He certainly has not performed well in his Shadow Health Brief. He’s a chancer.
Sorry I misunderstood your irony, but one of the reasons I like Gove is because he says the unpopular but is not cowed by any response.
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:39 pm -
Indeed. As for the leader – does it matter? http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labour-a-death-is-denied/16963#.VVDa8vlViko
-
-
May 12, 2015 at 1:47 am -
I live in South Staffordshire: I remember the happenings at Stafford Hospital, and Burnham’s hand in it.
The man should be permanently disqualified from any sort of public office.
-
May 12, 2015 at 9:16 am -
He always looked as if he wore mascara. Maybe he did.
-
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:19 pm -
“One of Mr Gove’s big tasks in his new role at the Ministry of Justice will be to get the UK out of its subscription to the Human Rights Act.”
http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/s-petition-remove-Michael-Gove-new-job-Justice/story-26478794-detail/story.html
That should have the Barrista lawyers on his side then…-
May 11, 2015 at 5:23 pm -
@moor Epic! Can’t wait for Keir’s maiden speech. Will he be his shadow I wonder? Think Gove will make mincemeat of him.
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:34 pm -
I think Dan Jarvis has that job.
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:55 pm -
We’re both wrong. It’s Falconer in the Lords.
-
-
-
May 12, 2015 at 1:49 am -
Think I’ll start a petition to have Esther Baker smacked around the face with a wet haddock…
-
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 1:49 pm -
Like Liz C , I am on benefits as a carer. Unlike LC I don’t think life on benefits is particularly ‘grim’-at least not in a financial sense.
A little Blocked Dwarf anecdote to illustrate. When I started caring for Mrs Section 3 MHA Dwarf, I was claiming Jobseekers Allowance and so was required to appear at the Job Centre once a fortnight. One day I found myself sitting across a former school friend who I knew had been unemployed himself until recently. He had gotten a job, with a canny eye on Job Security I thought, with the Job Centre themselves.
A few days after that I happened to meet him on the street and we got talking. I , once again, praised his choice of further career but he then said he was probably going to have to become unemployed again because he couldn’t afford to live on what the Job Centre paid him for a full week’s work in one of the toughest jobs going – a job I wouldn’t do. Dealing with the Great British Unemployed Unwashed day in and day out, being the ‘face’ of the DWP…takes a stronger man than I….one with a stronger stomach lining than I and the degree of patience that makes a saint look short tempered. A second Dan black belt in some Martial Art is also quite handy, the Job Centre staff not yet sitting behind Bullet Proof glass as a rule.
He confessed to me he was taking home just under 1K a month and was now liable for everything from Council Tax to Prescription Charges.
So, despite knowing it may cramp our lifestyle (we run a car, I smoke 60 a day , take foreign holidays, eat what we want and I used to drink 1.5 litres of Scotch a day) I wish IDS all the best. I doubt he will be able to solve the Gordon’s Knot of the Benefit Trap but I hope he does, not for my sake but for my kids.
-
May 11, 2015 at 6:09 pm -
BD, that raises another, but linked matter; that of taxation and the taxable allowance. Why on earth did we end up with a system in somebody on a lowish wage paid income tax and Nationa Insurance, leaving them with insufficient to pay the basic bills, and then have their income topped up by tax credits? Wouldn’t it be simpler just to not tax people in the first place?
I propose that income up to a certain figure – say about £12,000 a year – is not liable to either income tax or National Insurance, and taxed at a low rate up to another figure – say about £20,000 a year, then income above that figure taxed at a flat rate, variable by the government of the day. I suggest about 40%, the figure to include both tax and NI. Employer’s NI contributions to be abolished – why tax people for creating employment opportunities?
That increases the incentive to work, since it means that most people could cover the basic bills before taxation kicks in. There’s less chance of people finding that they can’t afford to take a job.
-
May 12, 2015 at 1:52 am -
Don’t be stupid! An idea brimming with common sense – and you believe any of our politicos would espouse it?
I wish I had your faith…
-
May 12, 2015 at 9:15 am -
The £12k tax limit is government policy isn’t it? I grant that freedom from the NHS might not be, but it’s close enough. Lifting the lowest-paid out of tax was of course the cornerstone of Liberal policy in 2010, and prompted me to vote for them. Remarkably, they kept their promise and duly received the reward of the working classes: annihilation at the polls. It might be what we want but woe betide those who give us what we want.
-
May 12, 2015 at 10:57 am -
I think the 2010 LibDem pledge was to raise the tax threshold to £10k, but only for income tax, not NI. It was the best thing the Lib Dems contributed to government (after stability), and was shamelessly pinched by the Tories. Noises have since been made about ‘taking the low-paid out of tax altogether’, but I’ve yet to see any actual policy.
-
May 12, 2015 at 11:15 am -
Manifesto Pledge:
Taking everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of income tax
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32683869
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 1:53 pm -
“The Times” today contained a brief item about how the surprising UK election result spoilt a stunt the left wing tabloid, “The Mirror” had planned. Anticipating that David Cameron would be short of a majority, the paper had booked a removals van and had a reporter dressed up as a chicken to strut outside Downing Street goading him to leave. As the evening wore on and it became clear that the exit poll was right, the chicken was told to cluck off…!
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:00 pm -
Goes to show the level of tabloid politics and journalists too.
-
May 11, 2015 at 6:49 pm -
Providing you have an electron microscope!
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 2:38 pm -
Some people seem to think “Blairism” is on it’s way back.
https://twitter.com/MaryJasper2/status/597691185256337408Me? I think “Blairism” was a means to an end – and this is the beginning of the end now.
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:31 pm -
Wonder what this geezer was saying in 1997, or if he ever knew how to spell all their names…
https://twitter.com/joecooknow/status/597716329660047360
Campbell, Mandleson, David Milliband, Blair et al all circling above like vultures. This can only spell more disaster
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 2:42 pm -
That is a pretty potent post, well put and well said.
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:28 pm -
Does it really make any difference just which party is ‘in power’ because the real power lies, as always, with the career ‘faceless mandarins’ of the bureaucracy.
Just how many ‘Tory’ or ‘UKIP’ supporters do you think are employed at the DWP, etc.? (My local, and regional councils are both Tory now, again, but you won’t find more than a handful, if that, of anyone other than Labour supporters/voters (and often the most militant I’ve ever had the misfortune to meet) of the many thousands employed by them).
So bring in whatever policies you wish but expect how those policies will be applied to not necessarily reflect your aims (ever wonder why so many cases of ‘cuts’ being deliberately targeted at the actual service providing section of a work-force, the ‘low-hanging-fruit’ of the legitimate claimants, only those areas apparently designed to cause as much distress/bad-publicity as possible?).
Look back to when the NHS and the Welfare State still actually (appeared at least) to work, that was when the bureaucracies were still staffed by a majority of middle-of-the-road and Tory types, but as with education, the judiciary, the police, every NGO and all the media this now far from the truth – all reflect one-party political affiliation now, and for some many a year.
Are people inherently selfish? Of course and (to quote Alexander Fraser Tytler) regularly “ vote itself largess out of the public treasury” but that was always, in the past, counteracted by the social belief/expectation of self-reliance, independence and the Protestant work ethic, enforced by the social shaming of those who acted otherwise. Now? The expectation, the ‘right’ and even pride expressed by those who could do otherwise but choose to live off the sweat of others labour is almost commonplace and even lauded (there’s certainly not much shame or shunning around nowadays).
But … when those who actually apply the rules have a different agenda to those that propose them then we get, as we have now, the deliberate targeting of the easy-meat, the poor and needy whilst the spongers and (yes, here locally at least many foreign benefit tourists) – well, the former, unlike the latter, aren’t going to scream, shout, go to the press and threaten the mandarins are they?
Then, of course, all the institutions are run by Pournelle’s second types now and have been for decades.
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people”:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.So we have an establishment antithetical to any reform, one where the bureaucracy, rather than its role/rationale, is paramount coupled with a growing populace of people who see it as a right to live off bribes offered by stealing it from others (who either work for it or are at least more deserving). What could go wrong? Sigh!
(Oh, and for those who’ve complained about ATOS and A4E, you might want to examine just which party it was who privatised that work, and crucially which of their cronies [members, friends and donors], now multimillionaires, own those organisations).
In a brief stint (courtesy of HM forces) as medically unfit to work I saw two types at the job-centre/ATOS/A4E. One was the patently disable, poor and suffering. The other was the one that turned up in designer clothes, parking their new car and who I later saw out socialising every night. Guess which type was ‘always’ targeted for reductions or stopped benefits? And that can’t be anything other than deliberate. (I may be biased since being shot in the line of duty I received little to no support from benefits, having to rely on SSAFA, SFA, OA and CA charities to even survive – “Oh it’s Tommy this …” indeed).
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:37 pm -
Yet the “classic portrayal” now is that the Establishment Tory types are the evil ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_Appleby
Sir Humphrey won a classical scholarship to Winchester College before reading Classics at Baillie College, Oxford, where he got a First. After National Service in the Army Education Corps he entered the Civil Service…He still holds women to be the fairer sex and is thus overly courteous, frequently addressing them as “Dear lady”…
Humphrey is usually smooth, calm and collected within his element of bureaucracy and procedure, but has become so adept at working within and maintaining the system of government that, whenever anything unexpected is sprung on him, whether it be Hacker ordering him to negotiate with a rogue councillor, or honours in his department being made dependent on economies, Humphrey immediately crumbles, on a few occasions being reduced to stuttering out garbled platitudes such as “the beginning of the end” or “it cuts at the very roots”, although he usually regains his composure pretty quickly to push things back on track.
-
May 12, 2015 at 8:56 pm -
I seem to remember Sir Humphrey being fond of reminding Jim Hacker that his ‘boss’ was a graduate of the LSE.
-
May 12, 2015 at 10:53 pm -
Gadaffi?
-
May 13, 2015 at 12:29 am -
Sorry, you’ve lost me there!
-
May 13, 2015 at 7:35 am -
-
May 13, 2015 at 9:26 am -
Ah, I forgot about that member of the illustrious dynasty!
-
May 13, 2015 at 9:44 am -
Still an illustrious member of the LSE fraternity notwithstanding his alleged War Crimes
http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/public/education/update-education-plagiarism-strict-liability-offenceMeanwhile in other news of 2012:
13th October – Sir Jimmy Savile’s honorary degree has been rescinded, sparing the blushes of Prof Les Ebdon, the controversial universities’ watchdog.Gotta love the morals of the academic industry.
-
May 13, 2015 at 10:32 am -
Didn’t one of the major universities name a ‘house’ after Winnie Mandela back in the 80s?
-
May 13, 2015 at 10:37 am -
Sponsored by Dunlop probably.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 3:55 pm -
Parliament proposes, the civil service disposes.
What I find shocking is how many public sector workers are members of unions, such as Unite, and Unison. It’s a route to power without recourse to parliament.
-
May 11, 2015 at 8:17 pm -
As a lowbrow aside, this R4X listener would suggest ‘Clare in the community’ when it’s next aired. And it will be, again & again.
With the destruction of World service & the decline of R4, it’s all that’s left of BBC radio worth the batteries.
Mind you, on a Saturday night the late & dearest was very keen on the Dave Cash prog on some Southern BBC station- a creaky bop in the kitchen guaranteed.
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 4:05 pm -
-
May 11, 2015 at 4:55 pm -
muffled noise from Euro-trough… snork.. ok… *chomping noises trail into posterity *
-
-
May 11, 2015 at 4:55 pm -
“However, all politicians have a responsibility to balance public spending against what the public will contribute in taxation”.
Alas, that supposed sense of responsibility can so easily desert Ministers, MPs and civil servants. How many millions have been poured into IT projects that either get cancelled, or fail to work as intended? Will the hideously expensive H2S rail link really deliver the claimed benefits? What about the defence department procurements that over-run budgets and time frames — and lead to lunacy like two aircraft carriers (£6.2 billion) with no suitable aircraft therefor? As for zero-hour contracts, they serve only to fiddle the unemployment figures; they do not deliver a living wage and the requirement to be on-call often precludes looking for another, better job (assuming there actually were enough jobs available for those searching for one).
On the other hand, MPs are assiduous in pursuing their own interests. Last year, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said it would no longer release the names of MPs whose expenses were under investigation and the public would be barred from hearings (to protect the MPs from the “reputational damage” they would suffer because of “public scrutiny”). It was the same IPSA that proposed MPs should get a 10 per cent pay rise in 2015 because “they do an important job”. There are many more people who do even more vital jobs, yet find their pay frozen — and, often, lose their jobs in one of the frequent funding cuts. Some countries in the EU have managed to function for extended periods without a government and no-one notices any difference! It’s a lot harder for a society to function without, for example, enough firefighters, nurses and police. Finally, have you read how much the MPs ousted after the recent election will receive in ‘compensation’? In total, it’ll cost taxpayers £11.5m.
As for IDS being “fair”, on one occasion his invented figures were publicly contradicted by the Office for National Statistics; he has even mis-quoted the findings of the DWP, his own department. To put the kindest possible complexion on it, that smacks of incompetence.
-
May 11, 2015 at 5:21 pm -
* To put the kindest possible complexion on it, that smacks of incompetence. *
Or just that these “Think-Tanks” are of full of lefties peddling civil service bollocks.
-
{ 105 comments… read them below or add one }