What a laugh! The coalition increases tuition fees to £9,000 and Nick Clegg, Mr. Trustworthy himself then lambasts Oxford and Cambridge for having the audacity to charge £9,000 tuition fees!
Does he think this attack on the institutions he and his fellow conspirators gave the rise to will win him brownie points with students; or with any of us, for that matter?
If, as he claims, the universities can't decide tuition fees, then who will? And saying they need to open their doors to poorer students is ridiculous. This is only reasonable if the poorer students have the academic ability to study at that level. And if they do then there should be an open door policy irrespective of fees.
But the whole education strategy is designed to see that poorer students- or prospective students- stay that way, with a poorer education to match which will see far fewer at any university. Nice big pool of uneducated unemployed to hold down wages and keep us in fear of our jobs.
I call for us to stop calling ourselves 'working class' and start to use the more accurate 'mostly unemployed class'.
I have been watching Ed Miliband with interest. I hoped the anti-Labour movement that tried to tar him 'Red Ed' were right. That maybe he would lead the Labour Party back to its socialist roots, and I could vote for them once again. But his comment, reported at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12362722 that "the UK had its own version of the "American dream"" has led me to re-asses my tentative acceptance of his leadership of Labour. He is a Blairite, a Capitalist and will not persuade me with such talk that Labour is fit to govern- any more than the coalition is.
David Cameron says banks should pay smaller bonuses. But he won't do anything to make them.
The article goes on to bleating bankers and how tough the rules are in the U.K.
They all should take a stint at the sharp end and see just how hard it is for ordinary folk before they complain about multi-million pound bonuses not being enough.
"The best the coalition can hope for is a declaration from the banks that they will pay out less than they would have without government intervention."
It seems this coalition can legislate to make those less able pay the for the deficit. But is unable to legislate to make the bankers, who owe the country billions, do the same.
'Were in this together'. Trouble is, some of us are in it up to the neck, with bankers standing on our heads.
How in heaven's name does raising VAT from 17.5 to 20% boost jobs? And if income tax was raised in the right places, e.g. Super-bonuses over a set limit, say £50,000 and raising the top rate of tax to 75& for those earning £200,000 and over we wouldn't need the VAT rise that hits us all.
VAT was introduces to replace the several rates of purchase tax and was designed to be a 'luxury tax' on goods deemed not essential, such as fur coats and Rolls Royce cars so that those that could afford such goods would contribute more through their purchases. Hard to believe when we see it on everyday clothes we all have to buy.
This rise will hit spending and therefore jobs. High wages and low prices are not diametrical opposites. This is a good, efficient expanding economy. The problem is successive governments have concentrated on holding down wages while prices have been left to the whims of their wealthy friends.
And why isn't VAT charged on newspapers and magazines? I haven't bought either of these items for years and get on quite nicely. Could it be the government don't want to upset their friend's in Fleet Street and attract bad press?
It's time VAT was applied strictly to luxury goods, such as the ones I mention above. Then they can charge 90% as far as I am concerned.
It is blatantly an attempt to 'force' by peer pressure people to donate to charity so that the coalition can further dismantle the welfare state.
I do not donate to charity; at least very rarely. Because I do not believe in a modern, rich society that we should even need charity. And do not believe the hype that the country cannot afford the welfare state in its current form. It could easily afford to expand it if the massive wealth owned and controlled by a tiny minority were put to this use.
Consider this; currently, you have a right to health care, to payments if you cannot work etc. etc. if it is left to charities to perform and fund these tasks, it will no longer be a right. You will be at the mercy of a rich ruling class and their generosity.
Just what the Tories have always wanted. One only needs to look at the early C20th to see this doesn't work. You need only look at the reasons the Labour Party (the real one- not this sham Tory lot) was formed to see it would not work. Left to the whims of the Liberal Party (LibDems today) or the crushing policies of the Tories, the working class would be thrown back to the days when your employer was effectively your landlord, your local grocer and you law-giver.
That is the stark reality. That is what the coalition's plans are heading towards. If you look closely at them all, you begin to see these are not independent changes for the benefit of us all. They are cleverly co-ordinated policies designed to appear to be isolated, when in fact they are all calculated to bring about the destruction of the welfare state, the rise of elitism and control of the working class.
These things can no longer be brought about or maintained through state violence, such as the Peterloo Massacre (though recent police activity seems to suggest this is another area being explored by unseen policy-makers). So they fool us with horror stories of the huge deficit (put simply, this year's debt) but are loathe to discuss the National Debt (put simply, accumulated deficits) which is still increasing.
Because the National Debt can only be tackled by investment in well-paid jobs to increase spending, thus production and personal wealth of the poorest who currently contribute little (because of government policy) to the economy.
And by default, Government (read 'our') surplus (opposite if deficit- an official term) can be used to reduce the National Debt and help the needy who cannot work whether through health or other circumstance.
This is getting ridiculous. Now we are in danger of third hand smoking related disease!
Now, anybody who tries to argue smoking does not have an adverse effect on one's health is sadly misguided. Equally, second hand smoke can adversely affect one's health- though I suspect it is not as dangerous as the experts would have us believe.
Now we are being told going outside for a smoke is dangerous! I'm not going to go into detail. You have the link to the story. Here it is again –
All I want to say to the anti-smoking brigade is you've got your way. We are severely restricted as to when and where we can exercise our right to smoke. Now short of making tobacco illegal LEAVE US ALONE!
Maybe I'm a bit thick. But if the Forensic Science Service is running at a £2m a month loss, then surely, whoever pays for the service is underpaying them. Assuming this is the police, then if the FSS charged more and broke even, then the police bill would be £2m more. So where is the overall saving?
It sounds a lot to me like another coalition con to privatise another public service.
You may not have heard but the Tories fought the election promising a free vote in Parliament to repeal the ban. So now the Tories are back in government we need to be on our guard.
The greater the number of people who pledge their support, the more we can make people understand that we don't want to see a return to the spectacle of dogs ripping apart foxes in this country.
Funny, though. The BBC should have such a small cut over so long. I’m sure their world-famous impartial reporting will be in no way affected by this generous act. Unfortunately the police, hospitals and welfare state in general do not enjoy such impartiality. Nor do they have the same infrastructure to be a potential threat to the government.
Never mind. With the destruction of the welfare state this government is intent on, if you can make it to 75 you get a free licence! That is if you still live in your own home and need a licence!
Ken Clarke is proposing not locking up so many people because 'prison doesn't work'.
It is significant that the kind of low level offenders that Mr. Clarke intends to deal with without recourse to custodial sentencing are the relatively low level offender that are more likely to offend against residents of or visitors to poorer areas.
I remember a time when assaulting a police officer would have meant a custodial sentence if found guilty, irrespective of mitigating circumstances or severity of the assault.
I remember when assaulting anybody would most likely attract a custodial sentence.
I remember there were far fewer assaults then.
I accept this is anecdotal and there could be many other reasons why custodial sentencing gives the average man in the street the impression of fewer offences and makes him (or her) feel safer. But the point is it has an effect on the confidence of the public and this alone is good reason to lock up offenders. It also means that while he (or she) is behind bars, the only other people that he will assault are other criminals.
Lord Hewart CJ said:"...a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
That is to say, no matter how fairly, legally and equitably proper a decision is made IT MUST BE SEEN TO BE SO! This involves a principle of perception. If a decision is perceived to be unfair, unjust or improper, then that decision cannot be acceptable.
And so this should extend to sentencing. If the public perceives that convicted criminals are free to continue to commit crimes and that locking them up stops them committing crime, then we should lock them up.
Senior UK police officers today said the current range of cuts would mean fewer police officers.
On the Andrew Marr Show, May 2nd, just 4 days before the election David Cameron said he would not accept cuts to the NHS, international development or frontline services.
It would appear that ‘front line services’ has been re-defined. You don’t get much closer to the front line than a policeman or woman in the fight against crime and the work towards a better community for us all.
Or David Cameron either got it wrong or told a downright lie to win the election- in either case, should he be running the country?
But the Tories always do the same. Promise one thing while planning another. Meanwhile, the Tory pundits tell us ‘it was the Labour governments fault. They left a bigger mess than we thought’.
Don’t get me wrong. I class the New Labour administration as equally, if not more deceitful than the Tories. Both lied their way into power and continued to lie while advancing their own agenda rather than their election commitments.
This is where politics needs to be cleaned up. But with parliamentary privilege and rules that you can’t call a member a liar, it never will be.
These rules were introduced when a Member of Parliament was supposed to be trustworthy so wouldn’t tell lies but might [accidentally] get the facts wrong. So be polite, no calling him into disrepute for an [honest] mistake.
Nowadays we know what a thieving, lying bunch they are. So let’s do away with the niceties and start calling a spade a spade.
According to a news report on BBC's Breakfast program, the pension age rise to 66 will mean that although you will lose one year's pension your pension at 66 will be 10% higher.
So, a pension of x at 65 will be a pension of x + 10% at age 66. This means living to 76 years the new retirement age will have no overall effect on the pension bill. Yes, that means no savings. 10 years of claiming pension from age 66 costs just the same as retiring at 65.
'Google' life expectancy UK and you will see other institutions give similar results.
Of course, this will mean fewer jobs for younger people. And if you are too ill to work until 66, it is likely the current incapacity/sickness benefits will be slashed so if you are lucky enough to be able to claim them, they won't be much.
The conclusions are several if men are to live until 76+, claiming their pension + 10% at age 66 with no overall reduction in costs-
That we are being deliberately mislead, once again politicians fooling us into believing they are 'doing something'.
That the problem will not be the current administrations problem.
That as the pensionable age is forced up we will be worked to death before we claim a pension.
That more draconian measures are planned.
It seems that old age, poverty, incapacity, inability and sickness is to be penalised so the banks can stay rich.
The 16 or so billion pound deficit is a drop in the ocean for the banks that caused the problems. Why are they not being made to pay?
The problem is these measures are not about the deficit. They are about the traditional Tory values of making the poor pay for the luxuries and wealth of the rich.
Watching question time last night, Peter Hitchens, a noted traditionalist conservative said as much-
"it's all very well to say tax the rich, fine by me, tax the rich but there aren't enough rich people to make a substantial difference. If you have the kind of economy we have… you have to tax the poor, there isn't any other way you're going to afford it."
This is typical Tory policy. This is typical of Tory half-truths. Because while it may be arguable "there aren't enough rich people to make a substantial difference" the fact is that the dearth of rich people is more than compensated by the fact that currently 1% of the population hold 70% of the wealth.. I would argue that while there may not be enough rich people, they certainly hold enough of the wealth.
Public sector wage and pension cuts- less spending power
Benefit cuts- again, less spending power
How do Messrs Cameron and Clegg suppose this will ease the deficit? These actions may in the short term leave some money spare to pay off the deficit. But long term, they will mean less jobs, less spending, less growth.
More unemployed, so the benefit cuts will be wiped out by more people claiming lower benefits.
History shows us that penalising the poor- no, let’s call it what it is- making poverty a crime- is not the answer and it does not work. It was tried with 17th and 18th century parish poor relief and 19th century workhouses. The early 20th century saw benefits, but only if you could prove you were poor and had to sell anything not absolutely essential to life before relief was given.
In other words, a workhouse in your own home! So what happened? People died or turned to crime. Perhaps that is why Ken Clarke is considering cutting £2bn from the legal aid bill. We all know who that effects. Not Ken.
David Cameron, accompanied by a distinctly uncomfortable looking Nick Clegg effectively said benefit cuts, both in amount and those entitled to them would encourage people into work.
So would removing anti-Trades Union legislation and allowing higher wages thus negotiated. As one would expect in the Thatcherite free market economy. The other nail in this particular coffin is the prevalence of a generation of young people who have never worked or known job security and are perfectly able to make a good living selling drugs. Does he believe this underclass will worry if their benefits are cut?
It has just been announced on BBC news Cameron has turned down his pension of around £66,000.
Now, does he mean he will never claim it? Or does he mean he won't claim it unless the deficit is dealt with?
Well I'd like to say I couldn't care less. This problem has been caused by private financial institutions. Yet all I have seen or heard so far are cuts to wages, cuts to benefits and cuts to public services. In other words, public services and the neediest paying for the mistakes of wealthy bankers who STILL receive their massive bonuses.
And Ken Clarke, another of Thatchers Thugs is talking of £2bn cuts to legal aid and closing 103 magistrates courts. So if you protest the cuts and get arrested, don't expect to be represented- unless, like Ken you can afford to retain legal representation.
Nick Clegg tried to soften the blow by saying that public servants wage cuts will start at the top. Quite simply they are the ones who are most able to bear the burden and as for Cameron's attempt at empathy by giving up his pension, well I wish to hell I was wealthy enough to turn down £66,000 a year.
This is just a return to Thatcherism. The global economic recession and the deficit must have Cameron and his cronies laughing all the way to the bank. What a perfect excuse for austere financial restraints on the poorest to maintain the rich.
The only small light I can see is that Nick Clegg, confronted by an audience of ordinary people with Cameron looked decidedly uncomfortable. Though he tried to give the impression of unity, I can only hope he has become disillusioned with the coalition and that it hastens my prediction that we will see it collapse before September this year, leading to a general election. And I hope the Labour Party seize the opportunity to return to grass roots socialism and win a massive landslide victory.
Posts
