The Spin of War: Misleading Titles on Libya

I've stopped the school yard analogy. It would be ludicrous to try to explain teachers handing the fighting boys grenades to acheive an end to the war. And equally, it is ludicrous that NATO, including Britain, is handing out such weapons, vehicles and body armour.

Wasn't there an issue with British Troops not having body armour? Oh yes, throughout Iraq, and Afghanistan and, it seems, now too.

But yes, Britain has announced that they are sending body armour to Libya.

It seems, that if you're British troops, you are not entitled to body armour, if you happen to be disorganised rebel forces with potential control of the largest export of crude oil in the world, then the West will flock to protect you.

Although, arguably, there is an element of shutting the stable door here. Perhaps, if one wishes to protect casualties of war, they should look to body armour first before bombing them.

Misrepresentation

I am partly ashamed to say that, as the daily papers move stories about Libya to the third, fourth, seventh and then World News Pages, that my interest in the subject has waned.

I still denounced the movement of the no-fly zone, and the headline someone tweeted earlier initially implied action that I would further denounce.

Libya: Italy rejects calls to join ground attack operations

Roars The Telegraph.

Bear in mind that circa 100% of people read the headline, 90% read the strapline and this reduces throughout the paragraphs of the article.

100% of people could be forgiven for assuming from this title that NATO are about to commit ground forces, given the term "ground attack operations" in the headline.

We should be glad that the spin of war does not extend to the strapline which states;

Italy flatly rejected calls to contribute air power to the mission

Assertive, no-nonsense statements from Cameron, Sarcozy and Obama rhetoric in this in of this disastrous war and that, I imagine, we will still be involved in, in decades to come.

However, regarding Italy, Spain, Germany, Canada and many other NATO members, it seems that such "no-nonsense" statements have little effect on other governments.

Despite this, the British public are perceived to be behind the movement, persuaded by paternalistic political leaders investing money we don't have, to reap rewards we can't be sure of, while at the same time denying our own country the same rights.

I am glad that we are not committing ground forces, yet. However, The Telegraph may be pre-empting future condescending statements from Hague and Cameron in the near future.

Death of the Lib Dems?

There's a lot of blogging on the Lib Dems at the moment. Some are writing an epitaph and some are writing of metamorphasis after the sacrifice of Clegg.

The phoenix was an interesting choice for the Liberal Democrats to choose in 1983. Most understand the bird to represent rising from the ashes, and so the merging of the Social Democrats and the Liberal Party could be seen as a rejuvenation of their policies in a positive, casting off their daemons along the way.

But the image of the phoenix is even more poignant now.

For those with a love of classics, the phoenix lived a 500 year life, where at the end it would build a nest of riches and lay down and burst into flames. And from those ashes, a young bird would imerge, ready for another 500 year cycle.

The metaphors are wonderful. As Ovid observed;

"From the body of the parent bird, a young Phoenix issues forth, destined to live as long a life as its predecessor

And here the Lib Dems are apparently at their moment of resurrection, in their nest of rich and Tory laid principles, from where a new form of party could imerge, amongst the broken windows of the Treasury and the Supreme Court.

Their destination depends on the party itself, the only party to be guided by democratic principles that govern each level of importance. Unlike the current parliament.

The Lib Dems have acehived a lot in coalition, although the voters aren't getting the message.

What ever your position on tuition fees, it was the Lib Dems who insisted on a cap, while the Tories wanted it to be unlimited. Imagine the social divide then. We'd be looking at an American Style system where those with money got degrees.

The limits on nuclear energy and the increased investment in renewable energy sources are one of Chris Huhne's biggest sucesses, the Green Deal, as it so quaintly called. But this deal will significantly improve the environment, having impact on ours and our children's future, as well as embracing better mentalities towards energy saving and reducing carbon footprint.

The introduction of a higher tax threshold in April 2011 will ensure that those experiencing benefit cuts are better off, and help to ensure it is more productive to work than take benefits.

The bankers levvy, so demanded by the public, has been introduced as part of the coalition strategy.

And that is just the beginning.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats havent had enough experience of the media and how to spin their successes. Or at least competing with the agendas of other political parties in the midst of a spin war.

Even ConHome was advertising Nick Clegg as a liar this week, taking their pound of salt but not accepting any of the blame for recent insurrections by students and activists.

So yes, a strategic opportunity is here for the Liberal Democrats. To reassert their party politics, play their own trumpet and push, aggressively, to get a differnt identity from both Tories and Labour.

The ultimate mission is still the AV Referendum.

Anyone who has been made redundant, anyone who has demonstrated at unfair tuition fees, anyone who is unhappy about the cuts to child benefit, are posed with the opportunity to change politics in the UK for good.

We are currently governed by a man who received just 25% of the country's votes in 2010.

Our own MPs are generally elected on less than 50% of the population.

Why would anyone be content to stay with this system of complete unfairness?

The change would allow people to vote for their genuine choices, no tactics, and change how the country is ruled for good. If you don't like Clegg, this is your opportunity to out him. Far more so than ignoring the vote.

To ignore the AV Referendum would ensure a future of Old Boys Club, a future of people who have never received benefits deciding benefits payments, of people who dont need to worry about university fees raising them for the rest of us.

But with Labour contesting the referendum (after all, it was good enough for them to elect a leader, but not for the country), and the Tories wanting to maintain the status quo, it will be the Lib Dems championing the campaign.

And there in lies their opportunity, a remodel and a review of identity with a new political system in the UK.

... Bleak House

At journalists, party members and the political classes watched the new coalition with bated breath, it seems that there are far more important dangers we should be anticipating than the fall of David laws.

The great debate over Capital Gains Tax has created a significant rift between the harmonious wedding of Clegg and Cameron.

In spite of great demonstrations by the Conservatives, they propose to increase National Insurance.

So, it seems, that the economy is the poisoned chalice after all.

The terrifying prospect of being "broken, bankrupt and bust" may be used as a stick with which to beat the middle classes, not to mention civil servants.

Quite simply, £6 billion of cuts is not enough to stop us from descending into the anarchy seen by Greece, let alone the potential failing of the Euro and the effect it will have on our exports.

No wonder David Cameron is so keen to implement a country of Entrepreneurs.

Spin, Photoshopping and No Straight Answers

What can I say? I couldn't resist. Have a look at the original and you will see what I mean!

Oh wait, do I mean here?

Big Society Rip Off

Cameron's latest announcement of Conservative Policy can also come under the heading of “Faeces by any other name”

The plans for a “Big Society” reads like a sycophantic Blairite view pre-1997.

In the last 13 years we have seen far too many “not-for-profit companies” that are in fact securely funded, and therefore managed, by government grants, masquerade under the name of charity and with extortionate fees of “project managers” and consultancy. All this plan seems to illustrate to me is a brilliant example of this happening again.

Perhaps we can also compare a rather tragic implementation of the “plastic policemen”, also known as Police Community Support officers. Subsidised by Community Wardens and supported by teams of of civil servants

As I have reiterated in previous blog posts, the Conservatives seem to assert that we have a big government and that the government ought to withdraw completely from control of the state.

However, it is in fact the big government that has no influence at all over local government that is creating problems.

In my own community, Councils plan to build thousands and thousands of houses, but they are not obliged to build alongside those houses, any local jobs, any resources such as schools or shops nor are they required to support the infrastructure of medical care that is so necessary to rapidly expanding community.

The Neighbourhood Army

The “Neighbourhood Army appears to be another ploy in getting people off the job market by getting them doing something that local councils will be doing already. By calling them “professional” community organisers, the Conservatives can therefore justify all of these people getting meaningless degrees.

Also note that the policy states that these Community Organisers will not actually be leading the communities, merely “help people start their own neighbourhood groups”. As anyone who has worked within a unitary authority knows, Community Forums are a cheap excuse for councillors not doing their jobs, not to mention a council not doing their jobs.

Following it up with reference to the United States is a piece of horrendous spin which is the equivalent of prefixing a design with the word Nasa and expecting everyone to jump up and down like five-year-old boys.

The satirist in me compares it to J G. Ballard “Kingdom Come” where society is managed by armies of “chavs” while councillors receive backhanders and stay out of issues such as ethnic cleansing of neighbourhoods. This metaphor is not least influenced by the words “army”.

A Big Society Bank

This appears to be a direct plagiarism of the Liberal Democrat policy on restoring Post Offices as a stable banking force within communities.

Neatly interwoven is the presumption that the Conservatives will have a banker's charge. Yet they only emerge with this idea in recent weeks, following the premise of global support for this motion. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, who have been pushing for a tax levy on banks to repay the money that they have been loaned since a banking crisis occurred.

One even wonders if this “bank” will be the function of the bank given that the Tory blog indicates it is in fact to provide something we currently know as grants, where charities and community groups can apply for funding.

It can be inferred from this, that they intend to move all local councils to a style of unitary authority where all public services are out-contracted to such bodies. Therefore the actual core function of this bank may in fact be where all of our council tax goes.

Neighbourhood Grants

So this is a direct copy of the current Labour policy of pouring money into areas of regeneration then?

The Civic Service

Notice there is absolutely no details of this. What exactly comprises of “community service”? If it is a fundamental core that has to be interwoven to appraisals, then it is simply a tick box target.

“Can you, Mr Joe Bloggs, demonstrate that in your work as the civil service manager of the managers of customer services who manage the outbound communications with society demonstrate your commitment to community service?

Oh wait, Sorry, you actually have nothing to do with the community.”


Big Society Day

So this would be another national bank holiday, as we have been ordered to acquire by the European Union because we have the lowest number of bank holidays of any country within Europe. Because that will be popular with employers..


Social Entrepreneurs

Calling a business in “social enterprise” does not stop it being a business. Providing new funding sources sounds just like the current Labour government initiative for Business Link.

Nothing Really New Then?

Well done Cameron. You have succinctly managed to rip off Blair, Brown and Liberal Democrat policies as well as making it look like The European Union's insistence is in fact comprised of your own ideas.

The only really new idea here is the “Civic Service” which in fact consists of more bureaucracy than currently in position.

Persuading Belief in the Conservative Facade

I don't usually review the columns in the daily papers, but this one in The Telegraph, “The Conservatives have The Vision but not the Nerve", caught my eye and I decided to have a thorough critique.

The gist of the article is that Conservative members are in some way intimidated or inhibited by the media labour and the public and are therefore failed to reveal their policies cohesively or sensibly, when in fact the policies they have are rather good.

In other words, it is an entirely subjective article attempting to persuade the more intelligent voter why voting Conservative is a good thing! Can you hear me champing at the bit?

Upholding My Own Disbelief In the Validity of Tory Policies

Believe it or not, the Conservatives actually have quite a compelling vision for government, in which spending cuts could be made to play a constructive role, public services would be more responsive to the real needs of the people who use them, and the state would be an enabling force rather than an oppressive one.

Personally I would say that the Conservatives are playing down the details of their policies in order to generate the idea that they are demure and humble, lacking in the arrogance, and indeed hubris, that the Conservative Party after usually associated with.

The concept that spending cuts would play a “constructive role” begins to unravel when interviews such as Andrew Lansley MP's on the Today Programme identify an across-the-board 10% spending cut within almost all public services. If spending cuts were truly constructive, and indeed, a compelling vision, then the cuts would differ according to the needs of the various departments. Money would be reinvested according to the needs of people, and they would be determined to cut the bureaucracy and consultancy that dominates public services and wastes so much of this money.

However, given the Andrew Lansley repeatedly used the phrase “spending restraints”, it is clear that the party has no intention of reducing buzzwords, bureaucracy and confabulation within public services.

This in turn indicates that Public services are not going to be more responsive to the real needs of people who use.

As for the state providing an “enabling force”, the Conservative track history on a refusal to allow democratic participation are both at local level and at national level, makes the statement almost laughable. As indeed the campaign Vote for A Change identifies, the Conservative party are keen to push the agenda to vote for change but they are not willing to hold referendums to allow the people to decide to change.

An Innovative Philosophy?

Honestly. The reason that you are almost entirely unaware of this philosophy is because the party thinks that you will either be frightened by it or that it will be too difficult for you to understand.

No, quite simply the reason that we are unaware of this philosophy is because it doesn't exist.

Apparent Fear of Criticism

Very occasionally, they allow you a glimpse of an aspect of their programme: Michael Gove's plan for "free schools", or the "co-operative" model in which public agencies would be run by their own staff. But then some television interviewer starts to ask wider questions, or a Labour frontbencher tosses out some predictable, brain-dead jibe, and the shutters come down.

The glimpses that have been provided of the Conservative programme have been contradicted at every turn by Conservative Members of Parliament. Such as providing inconsistent arguments for getting people back to work while supporting those who need to be benefits, a desire to invest in during joining the European Union combined with a desire to protect the British public from the European Union.

For a snapshot of these inconsistencies have a look at the Conservative website “Responsibility Agenda”.

The only thing I can determine from this is that the entire party is confused as to where they would go if they were in government.

The Tory spokesman who had, ever so cautiously, begun to hint at what could be a genuinely progressive new relationship between the state and the people, scurries away into the darkness again, like a small animal terrified of being caught in the open.

A Tory spokesperson who ha,s ever so cautiously, hinted at a genuinely progressive relationship between the state and the people would probably be considered an epiphany within the centre-right party.

Indeed the ones that have, seemed to have come to this conclusion and joined the Liberal Democrats.

The result? The Tories look vacuous: like a party with half-hearted convictions, half-baked policies and with no overarching theme to distinguish it in any fundamental way from Labour.

And indeed Nick Clegg stated yesterday following the strange political speech stand-off between Brown and Cameron that their election pledges were “vacuous”. This is not a result of a humble Tory MP concerned that their opinions may scare the public, this is because they do have half-hearted convictions, half baked policies and no true substantive difference from Labour's pledges.

And so, ironically, a leadership that is so afraid of damaging questions leaves itself wide open to the most dangerous ones of all: what real difference is there between you and your opponents, and why should anyone be inspired to vote for you?

Again, I reiterate, if Cameron and his party had leadership and inspirational qualities, they would not be afraid of any questions, they would appeal to the intelligent voters and they would present substantial arguments in the face of criticism from the press and from the other parties.

A Truly Insulting View of Voters

”You may be asking yourself at this point whether the patronising assumption that you are either too timid or too dumb to grasp the potential of this message is actually justified.”

I'm just confused by the assumption that this is the real reason for the Tories inability To communicate their election pledges without discrepancies, contradictions or confusion. This has nothing to do with my intelligent, nor any other member of the public's.

Apparently, the crux of the argument is;

Janet Daley goes on to state that the apparent reasons the Conservatives are unable to respond coherently to questions about their policy is because they are aware the “government run things badly”.

If that was truly their position than they would be proclaiming, as indeed the Liberal Democrats are stating, that they would review the way in which the government runs things and how this filters down to public services. If they had confidence in their argument then this would not mean a difficult announcement to make.

“by cutting back the power of central government and making the agencies that deliver services accountable to the people who use them rather than to politicians, we would get better, cheaper and more productive results”

If this was truly the case, then I would not have issues in my area is where public services without contracted to the cheapest company thereby causing and perpetuating the suffering of people who require carers. This is the extent of the Tory policy proposals on “coalitions”.

Out contracting services and minimising government input so the government can not be held responsible when people are harmed as a result.

Community Engagement?

”Second, the more power and authority that the state seizes, the less people feel the need to take responsibility for themselves and for each other. Many of the problems that now corrode the quality of life in Britain – anti-social behaviour, irresponsible parenting and the feckless refusal to accept any idea of civic duty – have their roots in the emergence of government as the only source of moral authority and the only provider of social protection.”

Ah. What this convoluted statement actually means is that the Conservatives feel that Britain has become a overly left wing nanny state. And how do they propose to challenge that? Well the arguments they present so contradictory, I genuinely cannot tell.

”Communities, families and individuals, whose ethical judgments are likely to be more sound and more effective, have been dwarfed by the gargantuan intrusiveness of this expensive, impersonal monster which, as often as not, interferes without understanding and meddles without sensitivity. So by pulling central government's tentacles off the most personal and local areas of people's lives – by giving them the power to run their neighbourhoods, schools, health services and benefits agencies according to their own priorities – we can restore self-determination and pride while improving public services.”

And at what point disease differentiate from Brown's pledge Fairness in the Community? Indeed, where local public services have been allowed to grant more responsibility communities, we have seen an upward rise in charity is funded entirely by public state grants which, while being run on a not-for-profit basis, are concerned only with the bureaucracy and illogical targets and public services provide.

One example that I continuously come across is Illogical use of volunteers within the public-and- charitable sector. Company-cum-charities are encouraged to let go of the little old lady who gives an hour of her time once a week because the younger person to give four hours and be far more productive. Or the funding that they are granted is so heavily ringed fence that it sits in bank accounts the years until the exact measurement of the grant is decided to be met at the funding can be released.

The only way to prevent this getting worse, and, hopefully repair it, is to allow a greater hold over local public services by the government, to allow the government to supervise the implementation of these ideas and ensure that people are in fact benefiting from community initiatives, engagement and social cohesion.

Privatisation by Any Other Name

”When it comes to public services, the independent local outlet could offer a relationship of trust, familiarity and understanding to the consumer, and greater efficiency and productivity to the taxpayer.”

The only reason that the party is so “timorous” about these ideas is because they realise that the reality for people who use the pavement everyday is not as simple as saying we will enlist a separate body to provide good quality cheap services.

Anyone who has watched Panorama will be aware of diabolical care services where the business is out-contracted. Or how about the changes to waste collections by Borough services, based on productivity of the neighbourhood?

In a lot of cases central government is the last resort for those campaigning for a return to fair services, as my work with Sheltered Housing UK identifies.

Indeed Janet Daley herself acknowledges that “Only central government, the Left argues, can enforce uniformity and prevent disadvantage.” But she then goes on to say that Labour's approach has indeed been to this aim. When in fact, the opposite is true. Labour has actually increased opportunity for the poor, aided social deprivation with the introduction of tax credits and support, but at the same time has failed to address its use with local councils and local public services having so much control without any government input. There is also been too much of an emphasis on Labour's Park of providing everyone with the same benefits and matter what their background. This has led to middle-class mothers storing up Child Tax Credits for their summer holidays and rich students investing their student loans in tax-free isas. The only logical way to proceed is to introduce a more thorough means testing, rather than providing everyone with the same, provide those who are in the most need with what they need.

But the Conservatives are not pledging this. The Conservatives are pledging severe cuts across all public services, a fast repayment of debt without foresight or strategic development as to how this will impact on our economy.

Oh That Old Chestnut

Finally, for the article to bring up the embarrassing concept of “class war” that appears to divide both the Media support and the party squeeze tactics, is nothing short of ridiculous.

While there probably is something to be vindictive in the squeeze tactics between the two major parties and the presentation of a two horse race, there is a growing consensus amongst the public that they would like to hear less about whether their MP went to Eton or Joe Bloggs Comprehensive, are more about what they plan and how they plan to do it.

And, ultimately, how society as a whole will benefit.

A Truely Disconcerted Discursive on the Tory Campaign

I am trying to work out just what Peter Bingle's intentions are here.

Is this a spectacular own goal, friendly fire, some sort of trojan horse or a selection of other internal assault idioms?

"Musings of a Tory in despair" is a procrastinating and pensive view on what has to have been one of the worst comprised campaigns in recent history. One almost expects Malcolm Tucker to be swearing profusely behind a host of inept ministers as headline after headline of inconsistent policy, greed and pretentious press statements championing causes that are in fact thinly veiled ways to make financial and quality cuts accross the board.

Shambolic
The Bingle Blog (what a lovely soundbite?) attacks the campaign for failing to appeal to the right people, failing to stand up to scrutiny and essentially being disasterous from start to far away finish.

This multi-faceted, inconsistant and illogical strategy, is certainly not in the campaigner's handbook. However, the Sun's eternal optimism is amusing in the least. Only Murdoch could procclaim the seven point lead in the polls as a good thing and then report in the article in the fourth paragraph that this is a "a two year low". Afterall, not many people get to the fourth paragraph in a red-top tabloid!

Inadvertantly Underlining "Conservative Values"

The great #cashcroft is a further moral discrepancy between the politician and the common man. There is an appropriate parallel between expenses and tax evasion that is "within the rules". With over 2 million people unemployed, the financial lacunas that are a luxury of the rich, from "flipping" to "nom-dom" will not engage the voter with the Tory Party.

Bingle comments "the 'sleaze from Belize' is a toxic issue" and while it has made spectacular news fodder, the growing social divide is beginning to grate on even the young's nerves. Perhaps they will turn to Clegg and his proposal to close "tax loopholes exploited by the wealthy"? Sadly I doubt it.

Tory Policy U-Turns

As Brown said in one PMQT, when the Tories announced a policy a day, he didnt think it would be a policy on marriage tax breaks a day.

And this is just one chop and change. Bingle observes, "I haven't mentioned the lack of a consistent policy agenda because it is simply too depressing. Let's take health and education as an example. Andrew Lansley's core message is one of stability. Michael Gove's is one of radical change. I despair."

Are Ubiquitous "Chavs" In or Out?

Cameron's Blair-like rhetoric on "Broken Britain" is brought up by Bingle, the futile "hug a hoodie" projections earlier on in the decade have become a blitz on young crime and benefits recipients that was such a campaign success for Blair.

Seeing as Blair's much debated legislation on Antisocial Behaviour is deemed to be a disaster with nearly 50% breaching the poorly implemented and policed sanctions, you would think the Tories would have done their research thoroughly before jumping on this bandwagon.

As Bingle states; "Did it convince me that a Tory government would give power back to individuals and reduce the size of the state? No".

Virtual Vulnerability

The vast bill board campaign is trounched by Bingle, and, as he correctly assesses, "the row about David's face being airbrushed damaged him as it seemed to confirm the suspicion that he is all image rather than substance."

The viral internet attacks on the campaign have also kept me amused in recent weeks. There is something of a lateral attack and irony on advertising standards when a poster campaign can be attacked with photoshop and tweeted in three minutes flat.

This is a revolutionary development on politics that I think will have far more of an impact in years to come than a any televised leader debate can do.

However, just as internet humour made some splendid mockups of Nick Griffin on Questiontime, I am sure the leadership debates will be detrimentalised in the same way.

There is no guide to internet campaigning, as yet. Politicians in the UK, perhaps predominately Web Hedgehogs than Web Foxes, are testing the water with Youtube videos, blogs and facebook. But with the virtual revolution one thing is clear. If you mess up, in any way, shape or form, you will be hung, drawn and slaughtered from Inverness to Cornwall and back again. In about three minutes flat.

Inside Intentions?

Yet, while I scavenge on Bingle's article to make my own point about how bloody useless the Tory party is, I am still confused. Is it a charm offensive designed to make the public vote tory? Is it intended to make us pity Cameron and his inept staff? If so, I doubt it will work. Or perhaps it is Bingle's way of opening courting the other parties for a quick side change as the election polls level up?

Faeces By Any Other Name

Cameron's proposal on Cooperatives run by civil servants provided some metaphoric raised eyebrows today.

How far would this proposal go towards the realistic achievement of local people running local services was my first question.

A brief skirt of Google News Search shows
I am not the first, or the last, to think this.

First and foremost, most public services, district and borough, are so contracted out, or out to tender, or TUPE'd, that you couldn't really call Councils providers of public services in a fullest sense any more.

The Morning Star quotes Osbourne;

create employee-led co-operatives and you can run state services, paid for by the taxpayer

Ol' Boys Networks

In fairness, the local councils are run by the councillors and their public subsidised, monopolising companies in a system of ol' boys networks the Tories should be proud of.

There are a variety of reasons for the vast turning to TUPE transfers in local services. From the huge pension deficits from taking on permanent employees to a hidden culture of monopoly that is protected behind a shield of "public sector" legislation.

Apparently it is not in the public interest to disclose the financial holdings of Councillors, nor their relationship to the "sister companies" nor the profits gained from investment of public sector money.

Sheltered Housing is a perfect example where schemes are run by external companies, but as it is considered Public Sector tender, the owners, profits and subsidies are not revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.

Ultimately, the Tory proposal to establish public services run by the civil servants actually legitimises this behaviour further.

Personally I am seriously unhappy about my council tax being funnelled into the pockets of the rich to run services when they have no idea about my needs and are concerned only with maximum financial incentives.

Privatisation should not be promoted as "cooperative formations" to bemuse the public.

Financial Incentives

However you put the spin on it, financial incentives to quantify services do not and will not work.

Target culture is one of my soap box issues.

Establishing companies run by employees is one thing. But giving them financial incentive to run them does not provide quality services.

In fact, in all levelling of services, all we ever seem to see in the UK is a lowering to the lowest common denominator.

There are horror stories on
Panorama on a weekly basis. Today's programme on Disability Hate Crime is an example where police do not have targets therefore do not attend to crime which does not tick their Performance Manager's boxes.

People in receipt of care where carers are tendered by the lowest priced firm resulting in untrained, juvenile staff who cannot complete the jobs, clients not visited, or not getting the length of visit or service they are entitled to, let alone the "quality of service" they have a reason to expect.

I could go on.

How exactly will proposing our current system of councils change to cooperatives change any of this when staff will still receive the minuscule 25% of their income to serve the public will have to meet targets to guarantee receipt of this?

So much for Cameron's push away from Big Government.

If the Tory party had a commitment to "small government" as the Liberal Democrats do, they would be proposing retaining 75% of the council taxes to District and Borough Councils to provide better quality services, weeding out those who are in it just to line their pockets and focusing on quality not ludicrous financial incentives have no worked in the last 20 years and are not likely to work in the next twenty.

Paliamentary Priveledge is Incomprehensible and Reduced to Satire.

It may be because I spend too much time reading satirical takes on the news, but this BBC article on the Parliamentary Priveledge Affair reads just like something by the Daily Mash.

A few choice quotes include:

Mr Johnson told the BBC people wanted to see MPs treated like everyone else.

Implicitely interwoven in this is the presumption MPs are not, of course, like everyone else.

"They are entitled to a fair trial and the public... would be aghast if they thought there was some special get out of jail card for Parliamentarians."

When, of course, there is.

"The Bill of Rights was intended to secure freedom of speech, the freedom of speech of members of parliament to speak freely rather than be at threat from an over-powerful monarch at the time."

Perhaps this reporter has a sense of humour?

There is, of course, an additional irony in Cameron lambasting Brown over the row

He is quick to jump on the bandwagon of public outrage over expenses when it suits him, yet he woulld not consider the grave issues within his own party on non domiciles or donations.

One has to wonder if he would be on the band wagon so quick if it had been a majority of his own MPs that were charged with fraud.

Aggressive and robust enquiries continue into Lord Ashcroft's donations and yet we are still without a complete answer.

The Russians have an idiom for corruption;

"The fish rots from the head down"

This is a wonderful way to describe it, and sadly, it does not only apply to the Conservative Party but to a vast amount of business and public holdings accross the country. But that's another story.

A few views on Frig's Day 2010

Hell Boys

I have run one or two diatribes on the "hell boys" so far so I need not impress my opinion on the illogical systems of criminal culpability and social care in this country any more. I will, however, say that no man is without merit, and if I had any faith in our British Psychology, Rehabilitiation or Young Offenders Institutes, I may be more forth coming about their ages.

But, in the true political prevaricating way, can I just say that Ed Balls on Radio 4 made an excellent point about the case being used for political gain by the Conservatives. The sound bite "broken Britain" is more Blairite than Hazel Blears.

The Pirates of Distraction Technique
Somewhere in the reports of bungled rescue attempts and removal of ring fenced budgeting, reporters seem to have forgotton the plight of Mr and Mrs Chandeler. It is almost as an afterthought in this article they add;

[The couple] "had been separated and beaten by the pirates and [Mr Chandler] expected to be killed within "three or four days".

I'm sure the local papers in Tunbridge Wells are clamouring for justice, but has the world got so big that we are blind to people suffering harm unless it is a mass disaster or a political tool? I hazard a cynical guess that were Cameron to take up their cause, it would be the main thrust of the BBC et al. However, "Chandler" does not make for a good soundbite, and he would only target the same story presented, blaming Labour spending cuts for the resulting harm the couple are suffering and may suffer still.

Perceived Terror Threat

This comes a little late in the day, would you say? Nearly four weeks after the event? The event that was farcical at best. The biggest fall out has been that the Dutch will be even more scrutinised in customs, and more personal freedoms will be erased with inept profiling based on stereotypes and masqueraded as UK Border Agency Security.

Brown's Debut at The Iraq Enquiry

Sir John Chilcott may have "said the committee was still concerned about the risk of the hearings being politicised in the run-up to the election. and we all knew it was inevitable.

I fail to understand why anyone would want to enter a ballot for tickets to see Blair dissemble arguments when we had that for 8 years with him as a Prime Minister.

And on the Iraq Enquiry, do they not have Lawyers and Judges because the cost of creating a logo eradicated their budget perhaps?

Munchausens Mother Jailed

While the facts of this case are terrible, it perhaps raises mroe concerns about our National Health System than I had initially perceived. With the advent of medical technology, one has to wonder how a child went through 8 years of medical examinations, in a high profile case, and was still diagnosed with conditions which require medical evidence. While I appreciate she put sugar in his urine samples to make him diabetic, I am not sure how anyone can fabricate cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis without a level of incompetence in the diagnostacians involved.

It also raises an interesting point about coping with Disability.

"Andrew Macfarlane, prosecuting, told the court that Hayden-Johnson's... medical treatment meant that the child was socially stigmatised."

This in turn makes me think about how society responds to disability. We currently live in a society that pities disability and yet stigmatises those who suffer from it. People with disabilities are constantly pandered to in the worst possible way, with no responsibility, few friends and exclusion from society, yet renounced with charity and gifts. But I will leave this for another post I think.

Tory Married Tax Benefit

Conservatives everywhere may be celebrating the announcement that Cameron intends to identify tax benefits and marriages.

However, this highly discriminating proposal will have a far more significantly negative effect on on society as a whole.

Gender Discrimination
Cameron does not intend to include these benefits to same-sex or gay marriages.

Financial Implications of Not Getting Married
Cameron clearly does not take into the financial savings of not getting married.
the average cost of getting married is the equivalent of putting a deposit on a house.
People who are not registered as couples gain individual benefits based on individual income; pensions, jobseekers, council tax benefit, among others.

Single Parent Families
Cameron also fails to take into account that people whose marriages or relationships break down through no fault of their own are therefore subject to discrimination financially when they try to support the families.

Faith Discrimination
Where we lived in secularised, multicultural society, the concept of marriage is entrenched within Christianity in this country. While this tax saving would benefit people who marry in any faith, it discriminates against people who do not marry because they do not support the religious connotations.
Why should people be entirely entitled to make up their own mind about their religious beliefs, yet be discriminated against for failing to fulfil a religious ceremony to cohabit with a member of the opposite sex?

Ultimately, there are more cohabiting couples in the UK than the married couples and this number is set to increase.

Creating benefits for married people will not increase the number of married couples in the UK when they lose out so much with other benefits and are discriminated against and is not truly reflective of a democratic country.

Well done Cameron.

Today you have managed to identify a potential policy that may distract from your Conservative MPs moat and bell tower fiasco.

While I applaud the policy that will state that all MPs should the residents of the United Kingdom and pay the respective taxes, my memory is not so sure as to forget the extremes of the expenses scandal, nor the lack of social responsibility and the rich, and in particular the Conservative party, show.

If you were serious on making a "fairer society" then you would have embraced the Liberal Democrat policies of raising aCapital Gains tax, you would not be insisting that older people required sheltered accommodation they would have to fork out of their own pockets, you would have straightforward proposals on reforming the expenses scandals, you would be supporting the taxation on the bankers and insisting on further changes to our society to prevent the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor.

Stop providing us with bite sized headlines intended to distract from your own party's failings and attempts to distract from the real news.

Pointless Passion from Cameron

Cameron is on on his high horse again.

I don't think that I would be as generous as to call his announcements today "half-truths".

I have very limited time availability today, so below is an argument that I had with the radio on my brief lunch break;

Cameron: (paraphrase)I will put an end to the ludicrous health and safety legislation that dominates public and private sectors in the UK

Me: Oh really Cameron? How exactly?

Cameron: (paraphrase) It is ludicrous that trainee hairdressers are not allowed to use scissors in the classroom...etc etc etc

Me: Ahhhhhh.... you're appealing to Daily Mail readers then, so how exactly are you going to reform it Cameron?

Cameron: (paraphrase) we live in a society where people have no responsibility for and their actions... etc etc etc

Me: yes Cameron, okay but how are you going to reform it?

Cameron: (paraphrase) public bodies are paying out due to people suing them... etc etc etc

Me: okay, so we've established that you don't know how you're meant to reform it and this is just a piece of electioneering win you votse after the Euro issue... are ultimately how on earth would you know what people sue people for?
You've never had a real job.