Posts
If this is true it's fair to say that some media organisations have too much power, they target people who oppose them. Very bad.
"The first thing News International did was try to have me removed from the committee," he claims.
"I realised then that these people were never going away. Something had clearly gone wrong with newspapers an...d somebody had to get to the truth.
"There weren't many MPs who were prepared to do that for fear of being targeted, so I decided I had to do it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14043436
Tweet
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Saturday, 2 July 2011
supermarkets
raise prices or squeeze vested interests, or leave things as they are.
sadly, looks like things will stay the same
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/02/supermarkets-derail-bill-protect-suppliers
it's long been a problem that boring geeks like me have had an eye on, and there is talk of doing something.
what will come of it all? it looks like nothing is the most likely outcome.
it's possible that it will come down to a choice between raising prices or tackling vested interests.
raising prices could have the result of people being unable to afford food if the minimum standards are compulsory or a two-tier system developing of protected and unprotected food produce, which could well result in a race to the bottom and the top tier going under pressure from business which then outweighs pressure from the bleeding hearts
Tweet
sadly, looks like things will stay the same
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/02/supermarkets-derail-bill-protect-suppliers
it's long been a problem that boring geeks like me have had an eye on, and there is talk of doing something.
what will come of it all? it looks like nothing is the most likely outcome.
it's possible that it will come down to a choice between raising prices or tackling vested interests.
raising prices could have the result of people being unable to afford food if the minimum standards are compulsory or a two-tier system developing of protected and unprotected food produce, which could well result in a race to the bottom and the top tier going under pressure from business which then outweighs pressure from the bleeding hearts
Tweet
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Chav and ageing goths
To me, chav is a sub culture like goth or heavy metal rather than purely a class thing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0124nty
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0124nty
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
A boost for the hard right of the party?
http://www.labourlist.org/a-boost-for-the-hard-right-of-the-party?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=113632+Is+Ed+a+slave+to+Labour%27s+hard+right%3F+%2F+Is+Miliband+a+shark%3F+%2F+Punishing+the+innocent+%28LL630%29&tmtid=113632-13888-13888-162-12-832-91650
i do't agree with the anti-right rhetoric, but i like some of the ideas.
the bad:
Ed Miliband is not - as some of his enemies would claim - on the left of the Labour party. He would, traditionally, have been seen as a fairly conventional old Labour right-winger. But for those who wanted a shift away from New Labour, it was crucial he defeated his brother in the leadership election, because David Miliband would have ideologically resisted pressure from below - no matter how strong - for a change in position. His team (who included people even more right-wing than he is) would have relished defining their man against the party and the wider labour movement.
the most representative members of Labour's electoral college: rank-and-file trade unionists.
In the speech, Ed Miliband put so-called "benefits cheats" in the same category as the bankers who nearly brought the entire global economy crashing into a 1930s-style Great Depression, and who caused a crisis which we are still stuck in after nearly four years
the good:
The government estimates that £1.5 billion a year is lost through welfare fraud, compared to £70 billion a year lost through tax evasion. The amount of benefits left unclaimed - "welfare evasion", if you will - is about ten times the amount lost through fraud.
There are 2.5 million unemployed people in Britain today, and another 1.5 million in part-time jobs who want full-time work. That's excluding those on incapacity benefit who the government wants to push into work. And yet there are only around 500,000 vacancies - and generally not where they are most needed. When Iain Duncan-Smith suggested the people of Merthyr - a Welsh town battered by deindustrialisation - get on the bus to find work in Cardiff, it was subsequently pointed out that there were 9 jobseekers for every 1 vacancy in the Welsh capital. As Ed Miliband himself highlighted in his response to the Budget earlier this year, there are 10 people chasing every 1 vacancy in over 130 constituencies.
Ed began Monday's speech with an anecdote about a man on incapacity benefit who, in his view, could work. I'm not sure about the wisdom of playing amateur doctor, but in any case, the anecdote misses the point. There are not enough jobs to go round, a statement we would all be wise to repeat again and again.
It is true that, as Iain Duncan Smith has admitted, Tory governments in the 1990s manipulated unemployment figures by encouraging those without work to be transferred to incapacity benefit. But, as research by Dr Christina Beatty and Professor Steve Fothergill has revealed, many incapacity benefit claimants are those who are least able to work in areas with the least amount of jobs. When there are large numbers of people competing for a small amount of work, those with ill health are least likely to get work: hence they concluded that "the UK's very high incapacity claimant numbers are an issue of jobs and of health."
And they are right. If you are scraping by in life, working hard in a job that you don't enjoy, and you think that there are those enjoying a higher standard of living at your expense - that will rile you more than anyone else. Right-wing politicians and journalists know this, and exploit it ruthlessly.
But it will backfire. The strategy will fuel prejudices that the Tories will be best placed to satisfy
Tweet
i do't agree with the anti-right rhetoric, but i like some of the ideas.
the bad:
Ed Miliband is not - as some of his enemies would claim - on the left of the Labour party. He would, traditionally, have been seen as a fairly conventional old Labour right-winger. But for those who wanted a shift away from New Labour, it was crucial he defeated his brother in the leadership election, because David Miliband would have ideologically resisted pressure from below - no matter how strong - for a change in position. His team (who included people even more right-wing than he is) would have relished defining their man against the party and the wider labour movement.
the most representative members of Labour's electoral college: rank-and-file trade unionists.
In the speech, Ed Miliband put so-called "benefits cheats" in the same category as the bankers who nearly brought the entire global economy crashing into a 1930s-style Great Depression, and who caused a crisis which we are still stuck in after nearly four years
the good:
The government estimates that £1.5 billion a year is lost through welfare fraud, compared to £70 billion a year lost through tax evasion. The amount of benefits left unclaimed - "welfare evasion", if you will - is about ten times the amount lost through fraud.
There are 2.5 million unemployed people in Britain today, and another 1.5 million in part-time jobs who want full-time work. That's excluding those on incapacity benefit who the government wants to push into work. And yet there are only around 500,000 vacancies - and generally not where they are most needed. When Iain Duncan-Smith suggested the people of Merthyr - a Welsh town battered by deindustrialisation - get on the bus to find work in Cardiff, it was subsequently pointed out that there were 9 jobseekers for every 1 vacancy in the Welsh capital. As Ed Miliband himself highlighted in his response to the Budget earlier this year, there are 10 people chasing every 1 vacancy in over 130 constituencies.
Ed began Monday's speech with an anecdote about a man on incapacity benefit who, in his view, could work. I'm not sure about the wisdom of playing amateur doctor, but in any case, the anecdote misses the point. There are not enough jobs to go round, a statement we would all be wise to repeat again and again.
It is true that, as Iain Duncan Smith has admitted, Tory governments in the 1990s manipulated unemployment figures by encouraging those without work to be transferred to incapacity benefit. But, as research by Dr Christina Beatty and Professor Steve Fothergill has revealed, many incapacity benefit claimants are those who are least able to work in areas with the least amount of jobs. When there are large numbers of people competing for a small amount of work, those with ill health are least likely to get work: hence they concluded that "the UK's very high incapacity claimant numbers are an issue of jobs and of health."
And they are right. If you are scraping by in life, working hard in a job that you don't enjoy, and you think that there are those enjoying a higher standard of living at your expense - that will rile you more than anyone else. Right-wing politicians and journalists know this, and exploit it ruthlessly.
But it will backfire. The strategy will fuel prejudices that the Tories will be best placed to satisfy
Tweet
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
David Lammy in brilliant shock
We believe that responsibility cuts both ways. Ed criticised the ‘take what you can' society. The alternative is a society of built on give and take - if you put in, then you can take out. Of course we protect the vulnerable, but everyone who can contribute should.
Full text:
Yesterday Ed Miliband gave his best speech yet as Labour leader. Not simply because it came after another round of tired, boring, irrelevant, repetitive, backward-looking carping about the Blair and Brown years. But because it was a speech of real substance, with the beginnings of an argument good enough to win the next election.
There is a fundamental difference between the Labour and Tory view of what true responsibility means. When we talk about responsibility we put the word ‘mutual' before it. Tories claim the moral high ground as eighteen millionaires in the cabinet wag the finger at the poor and slash services. Politics by the powerful for the powerful.
We beg to differ. We believe that responsibility cuts both ways. Ed criticised the ‘take what you can' society. The alternative is a society of built on give and take - if you put in, then you can take out. Of course we protect the vulnerable, but everyone who can contribute should. Labour voters are offended by the idea that anyone should be allowed to manipulate the benefits system. But we will also not stand for those who exploit their workers or customers in the market place or don't pay the taxes which are legitimately demanded of them. Politics by the mainstream majority, for the mainstream majority.
The Labour Party was born because the ruling class demonstrated no responsibility towards the workforce. Working people first came together to form trade unions because they believed that work should be safe and rewarding, not dangerous and exploitative.
The co-operative movement has always represented mutual responsibility in action, whether sharing the gains of a successful business among the workforce, or the sorrows of death with the cooperative funeral. It is a movement built on solidarity, one to another.
The welfare state was founded on the same principles of give and take. Beveridge's vision was founded on the idea of social insurance. We all put into the system. We are all protected during periods of ill-health, unemployment or in old age. Ed's speech Ed's speech tapped into these deep-rooted ideas in our tradition: it worked because it was Labour to the core.
These values matter as much today as they did in 1900 or 1945. People feel nervous that others are abusing the welfare state. Many are angry at greed, exploitation and excess in the market place. Follow the argument through and it could lead us to some big reforms.
It would mean a welfare system that is more helpful and more demanding. People would be guaranteed a job rather than thrown on the scrap heap, but also expected to take work when it was on offer. There would be a future jobs fund, in other words.
It would mean a more ethical position on how people make money. Just as exploiting workers is wrong, so too is exploiting customers. You shouldn't be able to get rich by preying on the vulnerable. So alongside policies for a living wage we would clamp down on loan sharks with a cap on interest rates.
The debate about tax would be different. We would rely more on taxing unearned wealth, and less on taxing the wages that people work for. Empty speculation, whether in the housing market or in the City, would be discouraged in favour of productive work and genuine enterprise. This is one reason why I favour a land tax. We are, after all, a party of labour - of those who want to work hard and contribute something to society.
Britain has a government acting deeply irresponsibly. Our first job is to oppose. But the price of criticism is a constructive alternative. Yesterday Ed demonstrated that we have one. More like this and come the next election the Tories will have a real fight on their hands.
Tweet
Full text:
Yesterday Ed Miliband gave his best speech yet as Labour leader. Not simply because it came after another round of tired, boring, irrelevant, repetitive, backward-looking carping about the Blair and Brown years. But because it was a speech of real substance, with the beginnings of an argument good enough to win the next election.
There is a fundamental difference between the Labour and Tory view of what true responsibility means. When we talk about responsibility we put the word ‘mutual' before it. Tories claim the moral high ground as eighteen millionaires in the cabinet wag the finger at the poor and slash services. Politics by the powerful for the powerful.
We beg to differ. We believe that responsibility cuts both ways. Ed criticised the ‘take what you can' society. The alternative is a society of built on give and take - if you put in, then you can take out. Of course we protect the vulnerable, but everyone who can contribute should. Labour voters are offended by the idea that anyone should be allowed to manipulate the benefits system. But we will also not stand for those who exploit their workers or customers in the market place or don't pay the taxes which are legitimately demanded of them. Politics by the mainstream majority, for the mainstream majority.
The Labour Party was born because the ruling class demonstrated no responsibility towards the workforce. Working people first came together to form trade unions because they believed that work should be safe and rewarding, not dangerous and exploitative.
The co-operative movement has always represented mutual responsibility in action, whether sharing the gains of a successful business among the workforce, or the sorrows of death with the cooperative funeral. It is a movement built on solidarity, one to another.
The welfare state was founded on the same principles of give and take. Beveridge's vision was founded on the idea of social insurance. We all put into the system. We are all protected during periods of ill-health, unemployment or in old age. Ed's speech Ed's speech tapped into these deep-rooted ideas in our tradition: it worked because it was Labour to the core.
These values matter as much today as they did in 1900 or 1945. People feel nervous that others are abusing the welfare state. Many are angry at greed, exploitation and excess in the market place. Follow the argument through and it could lead us to some big reforms.
It would mean a welfare system that is more helpful and more demanding. People would be guaranteed a job rather than thrown on the scrap heap, but also expected to take work when it was on offer. There would be a future jobs fund, in other words.
It would mean a more ethical position on how people make money. Just as exploiting workers is wrong, so too is exploiting customers. You shouldn't be able to get rich by preying on the vulnerable. So alongside policies for a living wage we would clamp down on loan sharks with a cap on interest rates.
The debate about tax would be different. We would rely more on taxing unearned wealth, and less on taxing the wages that people work for. Empty speculation, whether in the housing market or in the City, would be discouraged in favour of productive work and genuine enterprise. This is one reason why I favour a land tax. We are, after all, a party of labour - of those who want to work hard and contribute something to society.
Britain has a government acting deeply irresponsibly. Our first job is to oppose. But the price of criticism is a constructive alternative. Yesterday Ed demonstrated that we have one. More like this and come the next election the Tories will have a real fight on their hands.
Tweet
What is Labour for?
To me it's all about equality, help for poor and badly off, social justice, aspiration, liberty, human rights, collectivism
Tweet
Tweet
Ed Miliband: even pandas need to pander
personally want Ed to do well. I really want him to do really well. It's a good point about whichever brother got in, people would be wishing for the other. I've been doing that myself, but thinking about it I'm less sure.
Ed Miliband can usually do a good job in substance, so long as he's not pandering to bad causes, and his presentation needs some work but he's young. but that's my whole problem with this love for the young in politics, they are still a work in progress.
anyway, i enjoy Michael White as i think he's fair and balanced so always worth a read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jun/07/ed-miliband-even-pandas-need-to-panda
Tweet
Ed Miliband can usually do a good job in substance, so long as he's not pandering to bad causes, and his presentation needs some work but he's young. but that's my whole problem with this love for the young in politics, they are still a work in progress.
anyway, i enjoy Michael White as i think he's fair and balanced so always worth a read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jun/07/ed-miliband-even-pandas-need-to-panda
Tweet
Voters want tough responsibilities agenda, Ed Miliband told
I think that's very interesting. I also think there's a fair bit of scope for a lefty agenda in there.
things like employment protection regs coming down on the side of the workers through the more moderate and reasonable bits of the trade unions would definitely be something to consider, and if working people, "squeezed middle" or not, can see that these help them, they might support them.
Ed Miliband needs to put his analysis of immigration into a good strategic direction and some philosophy before the detail comes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/08/voters-tough-agenda-ed-miliband
things like employment protection regs coming down on the side of the workers through the more moderate and reasonable bits of the trade unions would definitely be something to consider, and if working people, "squeezed middle" or not, can see that these help them, they might support them.
Ed Miliband needs to put his analysis of immigration into a good strategic direction and some philosophy before the detail comes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/08/voters-tough-agenda-ed-miliband
Sunday, 12 June 2011
The knives are out for Ed Miliband at the moment
I've been fairly critical of Ed Miliband's leadership of Labour, and I'm not the only one.
One bit from that article that resonates with me is "Nine months into his leadership, few in the party are clear about even the broad strategy".
That to me is a problem. It's not a policy issue, it's a 'broad strategy', a 'high level' thing as they say at my work.
Thing is, i want the lad to do well. i want him to be good. i want him to be the leader i voted for, even though i regretted voting for him over his brother before the result was announced, because i voted early.
i want him to do well, and it is a mixed picture. I'm interested in this Blue Labour idea, and one i think could work and take us forward as New Labour showed. I think we (Labour) have to appeal to people who may vote for us rather than talking to ourselves and having policies we think people should want rather than ones people do want.
For me, give the guy some more time.
Tweet
One bit from that article that resonates with me is "Nine months into his leadership, few in the party are clear about even the broad strategy".
That to me is a problem. It's not a policy issue, it's a 'broad strategy', a 'high level' thing as they say at my work.
Thing is, i want the lad to do well. i want him to be good. i want him to be the leader i voted for, even though i regretted voting for him over his brother before the result was announced, because i voted early.
i want him to do well, and it is a mixed picture. I'm interested in this Blue Labour idea, and one i think could work and take us forward as New Labour showed. I think we (Labour) have to appeal to people who may vote for us rather than talking to ourselves and having policies we think people should want rather than ones people do want.
For me, give the guy some more time.
Tweet
Saturday, 11 June 2011
The Balls leaks
I really don't see why Brownites would leak against Balls unless it was just purely to bring him down a few pegs.
I can see why any number of people would want to get at Ed Balls, he's well and truely made that bed so he has to sleep in it, but why Brownites? He is, after all, the number 2 to Brown. Unless there's something there I don't know, which is very possible
Tweet
I can see why any number of people would want to get at Ed Balls, he's well and truely made that bed so he has to sleep in it, but why Brownites? He is, after all, the number 2 to Brown. Unless there's something there I don't know, which is very possible
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
