Something To Think About - Guest Post

A guest post from John Soutar.

Something to Think About

"As Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has rightly pointed out, it is"madness" for the state to subsidise large numbers of children born to parents who do not stop to wonder first if they can afford them.

And it would be fairer to the "vast majority" of responsible, normal, reasonable taxpayers to limit the amount they are made to cough up for these irresponsible breeders, who as soon as anyone suggests they're being a teensy bit greedy with the far-from bulging public purse start whinging about "fairness".

After all, IDS has promised to cut another £10billion off the state's handout bill and it has to be found somewhere. Obviously, the people who take handouts they don't deserve should be the first to take a cut.

So let's start by talking about someone who lives off the state and has little experience of the world of work you and I know.

He is 58 years old and has suckled upon the publicly-funded teat for most of his life.

He's signed on the dole. He's had four children and received child benefit for all of them. He has put them each through private school, too.

His wife hasn't worked since they married, except for 15 months in which he got her a job paid by the taxpayer.

He and his colleagues eat and drink food you subsidise in a palace you pay for, he is driven around in a car you own, and when he is too old to 'work' any more you will pay for him to have a better pension than you, too.

He started out at the age of 21 with six years of taxpayer-funded military service, during which he acted as bag-carrier to a Major-General.

Then in 1981, aged 27, he left the Army and signed on the dole for several months.

He then began a period of ordinary work based upon the skills he had gained at the taxpayer's expense, and worked in sales for arms dealer GEC-Marconi.

He then moved on to a property firm, where he was made redundant after six months, and then sold gun-related magazines for Jane's Information Group.

After 11 years of this all-too brief career he succeeded in once again boarding the publicly-funded gravy train in 1992.

In the intervening 20 years he has been paid by the taxpayer every year more money than most taxpayers earn. He has topped it up, along the way, to more than six figures for a few years here and there by being more pompous than the other pigs.

In 2001 he helped his unemployed wife to have a suckle, arranging for you to pay her £15,000 to be his diary secretary.

These days he is given the grand total of £134,565 a year from the taxpayer.

He lives for free in a £2million Tudor farmhouse on his father-in-law's ancestral estate in Buckinghamshire.

He has three acres of land, a tennis court, swimming pool and some orchards, which is not bad for a life in the pay of the state.

'Who is this scumbag?' you might cry. 'Tell us his name, let the authorities know his address, let's get this guzzler out of the cushy life and show him what life is like for the rest of us,earning £7 an hour with a rise once every eight years and a pension consisting entirely of penny sweets if you're lucky.'

His name is Iain Duncan Smith, and his address is the Palace of Westminster, LondonSW1A 0AA.

It's not the insistence that the welfare bill needs cutting I object to; it's that the scissors have been given to people who really can't be trusted not to stab everyone else in the eye.

As IDS himself says: "Can there not be a limit to the fact that really you need to cut your cloth in accordance with what capabilities and finances you have?"

The trouble is he doesn't seem to have the capability to cut cloth any more than he has to get himself a proper job that might actually be of use to anyone other than warlords.

I wouldn't trust him to cut paper, never mind a welfare bill of billions.

The sooner he's back on the dole the better for all concerned - because then he'll have to live on £71 a week for 26 weeks and if he doesn't pull his finger out in that time it's all over.

If only we could say the same for the gravy train."

Thank you "Fleetstreetfox"

Tweet

'No One Size Fits All'

The ConDems really have opened a can of worms with their Bedroom Tax policy.

Whilst I can understand the need to reduce the £21 billion housing benefit paid out, the policy is so disjointed it will be unworkable.

When Margaret Thatcher introduced the sale of council houses she also ensured the death knell of council houses for life, because the council housing stocks reduced radically in the following years.  Few were built to replace those sold and those which were constructed were family homes with three or four bedrooms. Developers don't make much money from building one or two bedroomed homes so why build them when they can have far greater profits from larger properties.

At that time nobody imagined the influx of immigrants who would come to live on these islands 30 years later.

It's all very well for politicians to decide that people should live in homes suited to their family's size - most people do so through the need to keep their living expenses as low as possible.  However, many council house dwellers are claimants of housing benefit, which of course comes from taxpayers.  Since the days are long gone when a council house contract secured a particular house for a lifetime, it does seem sensible that people whose circumstances have changed, get the offer of smaller - or larger - accommodation.

I know several home owners who have downsized in recent years, because they could no longer afford to keep their homes well maintained or felt they were too big for them. In such cases it's expected that there will be some capital left over from the sale of larger property, but that isn't always so. Some years ago far sighted developers started to build 'over 50s properties' or 'retirement properties' with services such as resident wardens and communal lounges.  These services don't come cheap and many people found they had little capital left, but they did have the security of a property which provided social interaction. 

Councils used to provide similar facilities for their tenants, but stopped building properties for the elderly and gradually withdrew the warden services.  This has left many vulnerable people isolated and as many have no savings, they are unable to provide a few of the things which make life slightly more tolerable in older age.

The new Bedroom Tax doesn't affect those beyond the official working age but it does affect another vulnerable group, the disabled. This is the group which will be most affected by these changes, although some say that non-custodial parents whose children visit regularly are also to be denied, or pay extra, for a second bedroom.  Children can sleep on sofa beds, but some disabled do need a room for equipment or carers.  How can government officials decide who is worthy of having a 'spare' bedroom when the outsourced ATOS company has made such a mess of disabled assessments?

My concern about the disabled is personal.  The husband of a good friend of mine has to use an oxygen machine whilst sleeping and because the machine is noisy they agreed a year or so ago that he would sleep in the 'spare' room. Their income would be severely stretched if they had to lose 14% of their housing benefit.

A bigger problem lies with private social landlords who see this new tax as a reason to increase rents or redefine mere cupboards as bedrooms.

No one size fits all but surely the first to be reassured should be those whose disability necessitates the need for a 'spare' room.

Like many other laws passed since the coalition came into being, this one hasn't been thought out thoroughly.  If it had been, it would have been obvious at the initial stages, that the lack of one and two bedroomed council accommodation would make the policy unworkable.

Tweet

India In The Driving Seat

Few of us may be aware that the Westminster government has apparently 'secretly agreed' with IBM that sensitive personal data on all 43 million drivers in the UK can be accessed offshore in India.

The data move is part of cost cutting measures by IBM, not the government, according to a recent report in the Observer.

The move was revealed after IBM, which runs the congestion charge zone for Transport for London, lobbied for a change to allow the data to be moved to a cheaper storage location.

The reason the move is controversial is because sensitive data from the DVLA, including credit card details, home addresses and registration plates, will now be moved outside the UK.

The decision was not publicly announced and the Observer cited union sources from the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union as saying that it appears neither IBM or DVLA were planning to tell anyone about it once the government apparently approved the decision following a review by ministers.

The move of British driver data to India is expected to be completed by 18 May.

In March the Lloyds Banking Group decided to offshore 503 IT jobs to India. There were no protests from MPs as far as I'm aware.

This mass exodus of services offshore and in particular India, is surely inappropriate in times when we have millions unemployed.  How much more corporate greed do we have to witness before politicians realise that privatising public services and public funds and outsourcing to other countries is a short term quick fix with a long term ever increasing cost and the only people who will benefit are the fat cats at the top of the pile?  It does not improve the quality of service - in fact quite the opposite.

So much for 'job creation' when our politicians are allowing our public services to be creating jobs in foreign countries and thus making our own public service employees redundant.

source

Tweet

Let England's Motorway Madness Be A Warning To Scotland

Throughout my lifetime it's been blatantly obvious that the SE of England gets the spoils while the remainder of the UK contributes.

Now, due to the neglect of road infrastructure in England - particularly the south east - David Cameron wants to semi-privatise motorways and trunk roads because his government (and the one one before) ignored the deterioration of major roads.

Approximately £33 billion pours into the Treasury's coffers from car taxation and fuel duty but during 2010-2011 the Department of Transport's budget was only £12.8bn.   Of this sum £3.2bn went to the Highways Agency for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England. This compares to £3.4bn spent on the railways, £2.7bn spent via Transport for London and £2.6bn spent through local authorities. The DoT is facing a real terms cut of 15% by 2014-15 so these figures will, quite possibly, be reduced in the coming years.

Why are England's roads so unsuitable for today's road users? The figures show that approximately 35% of the total income is reinvested in road structure and while European countries such as Spain have built a magnificent road infrastructure in recent years (albeit with EU money), the UK government has done nothing - with the exception of the M6 Toll.

No privatisation in the last 30 years has been much of a success.  Taxpayers' money subsidises the rail network more than it did prior to privatisation and service has gradually deteriorated while prices have regularly increased. Water companies make huge profits but the charge to consumers has increased by around 50%.

Companies will be permitted to develop a road structure and introduce toll charges on any new road.

David Cameron is desperate for money. He refuses to recognise that recent and present unnecessary wars are wasting billions each year - not to mention the cost of Trident and DfID's budget to rise by 35% in real terms by 2015.  Just a few policies which incur questionable expenditure.

Semi-privatising the English road structure by offering long leases to private companies is a dangerous proposal. Will the people accept more of their country's assets falling into foreign hands? Are the British too relaxed about foreign ownership of prestige assets? In comparison to many other western countries we are unusual in our acceptance of selling parts of these islands to anyone who is willing to offer a reasonable price.

I'm not totally against road privatisation, such as the M6 Toll, but a wholesale long term lease is very different.  It could be impossible to reclaim the roads without having to entertain another semi-privatisation plan to do so.

If the government considered getting rid of vehicle excise duty and replaced it with tolls, that may be acceptable to the average vehicle owner. But that's not David Cameron's intention. He intends to keep VED and allow private companies to share that income for the purpose of maintaining and improving the road infrastructure. I foresee private companies speedily building extra lanes/roads to use as toll roads and neglecting the maintenance of present roads. It's said there will be a watchdog, but no watchdog in the UK could be called efficient.

Would Scotland consider semi or fully privatising the major road infrastructure?  We do need to improve it, of that there is no doubt, but because major improvements have been on-going for several years our roads are far superior to some of those in England. Transport links are part of the heart of a strong economy, along with the manufacture of quality products and a well educated population. It is my hope that Scotland will never suffer from short-sighted politicians such as the coalition, because once a part of an infrastructure goes out of public hands, it is then outwith the control of the people. Scottish politicians realise that's not a good move - hence Scottish Water is still a public utility company. Let's hope our roads stay that way too for a very long time.

source

Tweet

A Wrong Needs Righted

Earlier in the year David Cameron set out his Welfare Reform Bill plans in which the coalition government vowed to 'make work pay'. The PM believes the bill would 'bring about the most fundamental and radical changes to the welfare system since it began'.

The Westminster government says, with five million people of working age on out-of-work benefits and 1.4 million of those for nearly a decade, that unemployment has become entrenched in many communities.

Iain Duncan Smith, Work and Pensions Secretary, has the unenviable task of creating a single universal credit which he hopes will come into force in 2013.

He considers the bill offers a 'once-in-a-generation' opportunity to overhaul a dysfunctional and chaotic benefits system that locks people in poverty and stifles aspiration'.  

The Work Capability Assessment was introduced to verify the disabilities of those benefit claimants who state they're unable to work.  It's a controversial assessment and not least because of this.  Cancer suffers receiving chemotherapy or radiation treatment are not exempt from the WCA.

Unlike Caron, I think the minds of the whole coalition government should be focused on this erroneous decision and not only LibDem MPs.

If you haven't signed her petition - asking the government to withdraw its proposals and to ensure anyone undergoing this treatment will be automatically exempted - please do so here. The words 'you have cancer' can break the strongest mind and body. The treatments also.

Every signature may help right this wrong.

H/T Tris

Tweet

He Who Shouts Loudest...

It's two and a half years ago since the MPs expenses scandal, in the wake of which a ban was placed on MPs claiming back mortgage interest in their second homes.  The move was part of a number of changes introduced to restore 'public confidence'.

However, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which regulates MPs' expenses, has been visiting MPs in their offices and is now considering overturning the ban because:

 ' ... there remains a number of MPs who believe that there should be a return to lump sum allowances which would, amongst other things, allow MPs to continue to fund their mortgage interest.'

IPSA is considering giving MPs allowances to spend at their discretion and is asking the public's opinion in their consultation document which also covers a proposal to increase staffing costs and a suggestion that resettlement pay-offs should be reinstated for MPs who leave parliament after an election defeat.

MPs' staff budgets could be increased by more than 25% by IPSA's proposal to increase the maximum spend by up to £19.6m from the current level of £74m. The reason given for this massive hike is MPs complained they were unable to retain their best aides.

A 50% increase in the cost of taxi fares claimable after a late Commons sitting, from £80 to £120, is also suggested. According to the document this would save the taxpayer hotel bills.  Really?

While the rest of the country tightens belts the MPs have been quietly ensuring their own nests are well feathered. It's not always those who shout the loudest who are heard.

Tweet

Why Do Squatters Have 'Rights'?

'We've just moved in Yer Honour

Can our Wayne borrow the car tonight?'

I've never understood the term 'squatters rights'.  What right does anyone have to enter into someone's home without their permission?

Fortunately I've never had the sordid experience of trying to evict squatters from my property but I remember it happening to a work colleague many years ago.  She had only been married for a couple of years and they had spent all their spare cash lovingly refurbishing their two-up-two-down end of terrace in one of the London boroughs.  They'd won a weekend at a posh hotel as a raffle prize and because they hadn't had a holiday since their marriage, both were looking forward to the break.

On the Monday she telephoned to say she needed the day off to see to urgent personal matters and we were concerned.  Upon her return to work the next day she told us the horrific story.  Squatters had broken into their home during the weekend and refused to move out.  The police could no nothing she said and they were now living with his parents while they started the lengthy process of going to court to seek an eviction order. They spent thousands on legal fees and the stress caused her health problems.

When they finally managed to gain their home back the destruction was beyond belief and they had no strength left to begin again, so they sold the property and moved into rented accommodation. Whether they ever bought another house I don't know but, having witnessed first hand the mental damage squatters can do, I could understand if they decided never to buy a house again.

All these years later squatters appear to still have 'rights'.  They are criminals and should be treated as such.  Breaking and entering is a crime yet somehow squatters manage to evade that legislation.

The Westminster government is 'considering' changing the law to ensure squatting becomes a crime.  How many more people will have to endure the horror of finding their house occupied by a stranger before the politicians act?

Tweet

A Petition For You To Consider

I'm not too sure about Westminster e-petitions because I think they are purely a PR exercise and little else.  Such a pity this petition was not proposed to the Scottish Parliament which does have each petition scrutinised by a Petition Committee and the findings made public.

However the proposer of this petition, the chef Antony Worrall Thompson, is an Englishman and lives in England so only the UK Parliament's petition system is available to him.

The petition asks for a review of the smoking ban:

We petition the Government to review the impact of the smoking ban on pubs and clubs and consider an amendment that would give licensees the option of separate well-ventilated smoking rooms.

Many businesses have suffered greatly with the verocity of the smoking ban's ridiculous rulings which deny quality businesses the opportunity to create well-ventilated smoking areas.  Switzerland does this well in its airports and other countries take a more balanced view of smoking legislation. Our politicians say we're a tolerant society. Let them prove it.

Thanks to Dick for the super logo.

Tweet

Another Young Life Lost

Twenty year old Scott McLaren would never have thought the above photograph would ever be used. No military person gives the compulsory photo, requested by the MoD when combat deployment orders are issued, more than a fleeting consideration.  They don't dwell on their chances of being killed; if they did we wouldn't have voluntary armed services.

This young man was from Sighthill, Edinburgh and deployed to Afghanistan in April this year as a rifleman in D Company 4th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland.

Something went tragically wrong on Monday when Scott was discovered missing. I've no intention of speculating on the circumstances except to record he was found dead after a full search by the military. His family have suffered a great loss and the his squadron too.

Another life lost in this war which has now claimed 375 of our military. Surely now our politicians realise we can't instill a western-styled government into these lands. It's been evident for years the majority of Afghanis want to run their country by their own methods.  Yet we continue to pour more and more millions into Afghanistan's corrupt government's greasy hands.

David Cameron announced today a further withdrawal of 500 troops by the end of this year. Add the 400 withdrawn earlier this year and when 2012 arrives less than 10% of our troops will have been brought home. He promises all shall be home by 2015.

Meanwhile the killing will continue on both sides and more body bags will arrive at Brize Norton.  It's all very well offering children bursaries if a parent is killed on active service but wouldn't it be more acceptable if they had lost their lives protecting these islands instead of fighting for a share of Afghanistan's gas and mineral wealth.

Tweet

A 1984 For Our Time

My local librarian suggested I may enjoy Henry Porter's The Dying Light and she was right. First published in 2009, it's set a near-future Britain where the tentacles of the surveillance state have been extending their reach throughout society.

I don't intend to disclose the plot but I it's worth mentioning - as the author does in his Afterword- that all the laws used and abused by his fictional government are already on the statute book.

The subject of this post isn't a book review but a serious issue. In 2009 ID cards were still on the statute book although the Tories loudly insisted, if they were elected, they would be scrapped. They were.

However, the coalition government isn't so vocal about the new national identity system - dubbed 'identity assurance' - which they intend to implement from August next year, with a prototype of the new system due to be in place as soon as October this year.

The new system 'will aim to reliably identify users of government websites' as part of plans to deliver more public services via the internet.

Visa is known to be involved in the plans and is conducting trials that would allow its customers to log in to the site using credit card details.

Of course the usual spin is being applied to this reintroduction of identity cards - 'more difficult for fraudsters to dupe the benefits and tax systems' and 'the shift will cut Whitehall administration costs' - but details have yet to be publicised.

The coalition government, with it's 'openness and transparency' wouldn't be turning opaque would it?

h/t Munguin's Republic

Tweet

First Stop The Bribery

Approximately 500 political prisoners - many high profile Taliban fighters - escaped from Kandahar high security prison during Sunday night and early Monday morning. To date only 65 have been recaptured and two have been killed in a gun fight.

We are told these barefooted men crawled to freedom down a 1,000ft tunnel, which originated in a nearby safe house. Why would nearly 500 men leave their footwear behind?

Regardless of the escape details, it was a well planned project which could have only succeeded with 'inside' help.

Karzai's office called the breakout a 'disaster' ahead of the summer fighting months and as NATO and the US begin preparing for a gradual withdrawal.  The justice minister Habibullah Ghaleb, in a letter to Karzai, laid much of the blame for the mass breakout from Kandahar's Sarposa jail on failings by Afghan security forces and foreign troops.  I can find no evidence that the prison was staffed by foreign troops so Mr Ghaleb's letter would appear to be a 'nothing to do with me' missive.

General Ghulam Dastgir, the governor of the jail, said many of the prisoners still on the run had likely fled to safe havens in Pakistan.  That's the same Pakistan which recently received an extra £650m from David Cameron, courtesy of UK taxpayers, for 'educational' projects.

Whether these men are in Pakistan or the Afghan mountains matters little, the fact they are at large matters a great deal but our media are so engrossed with hyping up a wedding and giving up front page space to a fool who admits his legal actions were 'excessive', that most have ignored the seriousness of this incident.

We have lost 364 of our military in the war against the Taliban and poured £billions of taxpayers' money into the Afghan government's coffers in an attempt to change their corrupt culture.  Is it any wonder their government is in chaos when we're guilty of such bribery?

With around 400 insurgents now roaming free and with little hope of their recapture, our troops are more at risk than ever, yet our politicians are reluctant to make any statement about the severity of the situation.

This security breach comes just months before the start of a transfer of responsibilities from foreign to Afghan forces. The coalition should insist the transfers should be speeded up and also make arrangements for our troops' withdrawal to be accelerated. If David Cameron had any backbone he would halt the flow of cash to Karzai's government.

Update:  Thanks to my eagle-eyed reader JRB, recent reports say an Afghan military officer opened fire on foreign troops today after an argument at Kabul airport.  The Taliban are claiming responsibility.

Tweet

For Those Striving For An English Parliament

When I googled 'English Parliament' for this post the first image was the above.  It says it all really that the majority of the world think Westminster is the
English parliament.

Of course I don't expect googlers from abroad to necessarily know that the UK is now divided with Scotland having its own parliament and Wales and Northern Ireland having their assemblies, but then these countries are now part of the EU: districts of the grandoise European Union.

It's not often I recommend you read Brian Taylor's posts - in fact I doubt if I have in the past couple of years - but this one shows to my English readers some of the power the Scottish Parliament has.  The comments are quite interesting too.

I'm all for an English Parliament as much as I am for the independence of Scotland.

My country has to grow up and stop the dependence upon welfare benefits, where appropriate, and return to a country which has pride in their achievements.  It's sad to read about Scotland's education system dropping below those of European countries which do have poverty.  We don't; that's another post.

So often I read on MSM blogs the frustrations of English people when, for example, the last Scottish government introduced a freeze on council tax four years ago, yet only now some English councils have made that part of their manifesto.  Shame on the Westminster government I say.

Why?  Westminster wants complete control of the UK yet the SNP is the barrier because they don't accept the bribes.

It's up to those living in England to insist that issues only pertainlng to England issues are agreed by only English MPs. Where is the English backbone?  Is it so reliant upon the oil in the North Sea?  I would say yes and that's why my English friends have, presently, little chance of having their own parliament.

They deserve it as much as Scots deserve to have a parliament which has complete control - but then I would say that being in favour of independence.

Tweet

New Intake, New Principles - As If

The snapshot is from a BBC video showing the 200+ new MPs elected to Westminster at the 2010 general election.

We all assumed - at least I did with an excessive dod of optimism - that the 30% of new MPs, having given due consideration to the exposure of dubious and the often blatantly fraudulent dealings of some of their new colleagues, would respect the wishes of the people and act as honorable representatives.

However, along with their more 'established' colleagues they have voted to make themselves exempt from tax avoidance.

Section 554E(8) of the Finance Bill specifically exempts members of the House of Commons and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority from the new legislation in situations where they are actually caught by it.

According to those 'in the know' there are other examples of MPs having special tax breaks which don't apply to ordinary taxpayers.

“The new rules on disguised remuneration are intended to catch complex arrangements designed to avoid income tax through loans made to executives, typically through offshore structures.

“It is difficult to see why MPs need this specific exemption. After the uproar over their expenses, I can’t believe that our elected representatives would dare to indulge in provocative tax avoidance. So why do they need the legislation to protect them?”

That was said by Mike Warburton of Grant Thornton.  He won't be receiving an ermine cloak anytime soon.

So our latest intake of MPs were more concerned for their inflated salaries than the good of the people.  I do wish I could express myself as well as my co-author articulates about our current representatives.

What has this to do with the Holyrood elections?  Check out how your own MP voted here.

One friend in England has allowed me to publish part of an email conversation we had recently.

"Give them [the coalition] a 5 year term and all they will do is allow this form of deceit to continue for an extra year.  I certainly don't like to accuse my English friends of apathy but their lack of concern makes me say so. What can we do to change things?   England (Westminster) is the core of UK government.  Isn't it time you Scots realised just how subservient you are to UK politics yet you could have a future like Switzerland if you had politicians with enough courage to attain it?"

What can I say.

source

Tweet

Silence Is Not A Wise Decision Mr Moore

He's such a quiet man few know he exists.

Michael Moore MP represents the electorate of part of the Scottish borders, namely Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.  He is a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Due to the indecision of the electorate last year and the infliction of a coalition government foisted upon the British electorate, he is also Secretary of State for Scotland and thereby represents Scotland within the UK government hierarchy.

Scotland has never had a Secretary of State - or what was known as a Scottish Secretary before that sobriquet became unfashionable - who has the slightest interest in the wellbeing of the Scots.  Their main aim is to stifle any controversy which would affect the Union.

However, Mr Moore has a responsibility to the folk in Scotland.  Part of that is his support of Scottish business in UK government tenders.

Some months ago the UK government tendered for organisations which could prepare unemployed people for work and find them suitable jobs.

The Glasgow based Wise group, a not-for-profit organisation, applied due to having one of the most successful track records in the UK of gaining employment for challenging clients.  They also fulfilled the tender requirement of 30% of the work being undertaken by the voluntary sector.  There is no other organisation in Scotland who can surpass the Wise Group's success - I keep a close eye on private businesses who insist they access work for those who many would class as unemployable - and the Wise Group do very well.

Mind you, if our education system was completely overhauled we may have more success, but that's another post altogether.

Now you would think the Wise Group were in a perfect position to assist people acquire work in Scotland wouldn't you?  Not according to the UK government who have given the contract to Working Links which said it would give 6% of the work to voluntary organisations and the other winner was Ingeus, with plans to involve the voluntary sector in 8%.  Neither company has any record in Scotland and in comparison with the Wise Group they have little interest in the voluntary sector.

As Scots we would think that immediately Michael Moore would be asking questions of the UK government's decision to award the contracts to companies based outside Scotland and with less worthy records than the Weir Group. He would have been battering the knocker on No 10 if he was really concerned.

Not so.  Mr Moore has been silent. Dumb. Speechless.  No explanation given by him  to the Weir Group about why the contracts went to companies why didn't fulfill the 30% voluntary sector specification.

The DWP now says a 30% or more involvement from the voluntary sector was an important part of the process but never a contract requirement.  Is that so?  Do I hear Michael Moore asking questions?  In this case the DWP know they are guilty of drafting tender documents in a misleading manner.

If cost was the main concern why did the tender not make it clear at the outset with the words 'the contract will be given to the lowest bidder'.

I have no idea if the the Wise Group's tender cost more than others yet it is of importance and relevance that the UK government issue tenders with particular specifications, yet ignore their specs and explain them away by the 30% voluntary credential requirements 'was an important part of the process but not a contract requirement'.

There has been a meeting with the Works and Pensions Secretary Chris Grayling, Michael Moore and the bidders for the Scottish contracts but it failed to resolve the issue of the voluntary sector involvement.

Mr Moore has been woefully quiet on Scotland's behalf.  Is he thinking silence is a better option for his party's Holyrood electoral success?

Note:  All day I've had difficulty accessing the Wise Group site. I've tried access on Firefox too but with no success.  Perhaps you will have more luck.

Update:  The Wise group intend to take legal action.

Tweet

We're Being Duped

One thought that pops into my mind on a daily basis is 'Are we being duped?'

The coalition have been in government for nearly a year and there's little to show for it.  Lots of talk about cuts, university fees which will help the poorest, increasing the efficiency of the NHS while angering most health professionals and increasing the state pension - but not for current pensioners.

The coalition allowed English universities to increase fees to a maximum of £9,000 per annum, saying to students that only a few universities would charge anything like the top rate, yet even the lowest rated English university has announced it will charge £8,000 a year.

David Cameron insisted, prior to his election, that the English NHS would never go down the privatisation route.  Now he's had to put his NHS Reform Bill into cold storage because so many of those concerned with the implementation have found too many faults.

This week the media is excited at the news that pensioners will receive a flat rate of £140 a week which will avoid the humiliation of older people having to provide confidential personal information in order to receive a few pounds to help them pay their bills. Tens of thousands are too proud to do this we're told. So it's great news for us pensioners as we'll no longer be required to go through the intrusive means test.  But no, the new rate isn't for anyone presently receiving a state pension, it's government 'forward planning'.  When the new rate comes into being, there will be two rates for pensioners.

David Cameron was in Pakistan admitting Britain caused many of the world's problems and as recompense for a diplomatic 'misunderstanding' last year he vouched to give around £650 million over the next four years towards education in Pakistan, which spends barely 2% of its annual budget on education, but more than 15% on defence.

I don't expect the Prime Minister, when he is abroad, to be running down his own country purely to seek favour with his hosts.  He, of all people, should be talking Britain up not down.

We have Nick Clegg insisting his 'overriding mission' is to improve social mobility.  Surely his overriding mission should be the restoration of the public finances and reform of public services.  His wish to create a 'fair' market in internships is both patronising and fatuous and has all the hallmarks of Labour's headline-grabbing initiatives which get kicked into the long grass.

The few issues mentioned above are the tip of a very large iceberg with a hollow core.  We're repeatedly told we must reduce the deficit, yet will having two state pension systems save money?  Does giving handsome gifts of over half a million pounds as a bribe towards business save money?  The only fair way to increase social mobility is to repeatedly tell them it is intelligence and hard work that count, not their social backgrounds.

Policies rushed through the parliamentary process without due scrutiny or foresight - such as the two mentioned - will cost taxpayers far more than if they had been carefully and thoroughly crafted.

Are we being duped?  Too right we are. The Cameron and Clegg duo will continue with their chicanery until someone is brave enough to stand up and shout, 'Enough'. I wonder if this man will be heard.

Tweet

More Coalition Arrogance

George Osborne's Budget announcement of a £10billion windfall tax on North Sea oil companies is causing problems, not least to Danny Alexander, who represents a constituency in which many oil related workers reside.

Some of Mr Alexander's colleagues have called for his resignation after it was reported he boasted to a group of 100 businessmen that the windfall tax was his idea. Not a smart move from Mr Alexander.

George Osborne, when being questioned by the Treasury Selection Committee (a lengthy video worth viewing) on last week's Budget defended the decision to up the oil taxes by 12% saying: "It's perfectly reasonable and the rate was still significantly lower than in Statoil's native Norway".  Do I believe him?  No.  The Chancellor doesn't even know the amount of duty the Treasury receives from a litre of petrol.

In this area of Scotland there are many whose livelihoods depend on the oil industry and the massive tax hike has created anxiety among them.  Statoil and Centrica have postponed projects and Valiant are reviewing a large investment.

Osborne's decision to inflict this tax upon the industry is wrong.  It's only recently that the oil price increased and if the unrest in North Africa and the Middle East settled, it's likely the price would drop below $100 a barrel (35 gallons).  Oil companies don't make investment decisions based on the current price but make longer term assessments.  Today's projects are much more complex from those in the early days of exploration and they are more costly in development charges.  The gradual increase in the oil price in the past few years has encouraged the large companies to look at investing in more complicated exploration but this windfall tax has created instability in the sector.

On Tuesday night, in the House of Commons, the government won a vote on the tax hike by 334 to 13, with two prominent Libdems MPs voting against.  Both represent constituencies in Aberdeenshire. The vote shows their indifferent attitude towards the industry.

Today Chris Hulme will meet with oil and gas firms to discuss the tax.  I doubt if Mr Hulme will make any concessions even if someone mentions the stupidity of Mr Alexander.

To upset the oil producers to this degree - for the sake of 1p on a litre of petrol - is foolish and ill-conceived. These giants are nearly as influential as bankers and should be treated with respect.  After all, it's North Sea oil which has been keeping UK Plc afloat for the past 30 years.  The Scots treat the industry with respect why can't the Westminster government?

I suggest the coalition's respect quota is kept completely for the bankers.

Tweet

Where Is Westminster's Dennis Kucinich?

On Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) of Ohio introduced a privileged resolution, with 16 original co-sponsors, that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan.  It wants Congress to fork out over ¢33 billion more to pay for the current American military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy.

Isn't it ironic that an American socialist is calling for the end of the Afghan war when his President has continued George Bush's policies.

Where's Westminster's Dennis Kucinich?  Only 14 MPs voted against the continuation of this war with 310 in favour. Isn't it a disgrace that 322 MPs couldn't be bothered to vote on this issue when they surely are all fully aware of the public mood.

James Arbuthnot, the tory chairman of the Commons defence committee said: 'it was a mistake to describe the conflict as a "war" and seen [sic] rather as part of a "wider global security mission in the Middle East region as a whole"'. His boss is considering an even wider global security mission this week.

Which label the Afghanistan conflict is given doesn't concern me, but the continuous loss of life and these words of Liam Fox do: "A more secure Afghanistan cannot come without military means but not by military means alone". How many more years are we going to be the Taliban's sniper targets?

source

Tweet