'The economy is safe with the Tories'

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

Moral Maze on this was really interesting last night. Recommend the podcast.

 

can't stand Melanie Phillips's bullying tone.

[Spion kop]

can't stand Melanie Phillips's bullying tone.

She weren't on it last night. Giles Frasier is on it now, bringing his brand of woolly nonsense for us all to marvel at.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Spion kop

[RP]

Yeah, really annoyed me this morning and it seems a bit churlish but balls to it. Also why not come up with something that 'normal ' people could afford to bid on, 25,000 people bidding a tenner that goes into a raffle type of thing.

 

 

Whilst I agree with you, they did actually do that yesterday for the charity dinner they are having next June. They were auctioning off tables of 10 to the highest bidders (going for something like 30 grand a table) ... but you could also enter a draw by sending in a text - cost was £2.50, I think.

[Duncan Disorderly]

The fact that Children in need has to exist in a country as wealthy as Britain makes me sick. These are all things that should be provided by the state and would be affordable if they taxed the wealthiest properly at a proportionate rate.

But it's for CHARIDEE.

[Eskimo]

Talking of charities found this post at the bottom of Monbiot's article....

 

Most of the charities that run government monopoly contracts are doing work that isn't worth doing, usually the talking therapies, delivered by untrained 'professionals' (5 GCSEs and just about relevant experience, which is often a euphemism for ex-addict/ex-offender/etc). Essentially most of the services which 'help' people are parasitic upon the poor: take Sure Start centres - some middle-class busybody teaches working class mothers how to raise their kids by stating the bleeding obvious at them then goes home with a fat salary far better than any of their victims gets, and feels like they're doing the world a favour.

 

These bourgeois w*****s then retire and pocket vast sums of public money, thinking they've done a net good for society when in fact they've leeched from the rest of us all their lives.

 

These companies always have lavish training events, by which I mean expenses paid trips usually to the capital to their luxurious HQs where the guests are well fed and gently worked with getting to know you sessions and more banalities and unproven witchcraft before knocking off at 4.

 

They run expensive branding and marketing exercises and, relevantly to this article, spend public money campaigning to government. If you fail to see the irony of that, you must be pretty unobservant: we pay taxes which are then given to these huge corporations with very highly paid managers and HR departments and press offices and all the rest, and they use some of that same money in order to lobby government to do even more of the same useless witchcraft.

 

The one thing in common with all the Sure Stars and Work Programmes and Harm Reduction and Mentoring and Support and Key Working and all the rest of the s*** is that it doesn't work. Yet because everyone wants to believe in it, and because there's stacks of money for making their case to the decision-makers, it carries on, and on, and on.

 

Iain Duncan Smith has been even MORE of a nanny statist than Blunket and the rest ever were.

 

If it wasn't so wasteful, so offensive, so destructive and insidious, it'd be hilarious. We create a class of helpless submissives, ruining the worker-base of the country, then pay useless bourgeois idlers vast sums to patronise and abuse them further, and no matter how many millions we throw at this rubbish, they always want more.

[smithdown]

Talking of charities found this post at the bottom of Monbiot's article....

 

Most of the charities that run government monopoly contracts are doing work that isn't worth doing, usually the talking therapies, delivered by untrained 'professionals' (5 GCSEs and just about relevant experience, which is often a euphemism for ex-addict/ex-offender/etc). Essentially most of the services which 'help' people are parasitic upon the poor: take Sure Start centres - some middle-class busybody teaches working class mothers how to raise their kids by stating the bleeding obvious at them then goes home with a fat salary far better than any of their victims gets, and feels like they're doing the world a favour.

 

These bourgeois w*****s then retire and pocket vast sums of public money, thinking they've done a net good for society when in fact they've leeched from the rest of us all their lives.

 

These companies always have lavish training events, by which I mean expenses paid trips usually to the capital to their luxurious HQs where the guests are well fed and gently worked with getting to know you sessions and more banalities and unproven witchcraft before knocking off at 4.

 

They run expensive branding and marketing exercises and, relevantly to this article, spend public money campaigning to government. If you fail to see the irony of that, you must be pretty unobservant: we pay taxes which are then given to these huge corporations with very highly paid managers and HR departments and press offices and all the rest, and they use some of that same money in order to lobby government to do even more of the same useless witchcraft.

 

The one thing in common with all the Sure Stars and Work Programmes and Harm Reduction and Mentoring and Support and Key Working and all the rest of the s*** is that it doesn't work. Yet because everyone wants to believe in it, and because there's stacks of money for making their case to the decision-makers, it carries on, and on, and on.

 

Iain Duncan Smith has been even MORE of a nanny statist than Blunket and the rest ever were.

 

If it wasn't so wasteful, so offensive, so destructive and insidious, it'd be hilarious. We create a class of helpless submissives, ruining the worker-base of the country, then pay useless bourgeois idlers vast sums to patronise and abuse them further, and no matter how many millions we throw at this rubbish, they always want more.

 

 

haha!

 

as f*cking if

 

he has got himself a bit mixed up there tbh

[kop205]

can't stand Melanie Phillips's bullying tone.

 

She is mentally ill, surely.

[D.Boon]

haha!

 

as f*cking if

 

he has got himself a bit mixed up there tbh

 

Sounds like he should be writing for the Mail.

[Swan Red]

I nearly owed Eskimo a massive apology

[Swan Red]

Quite the opposite in his views so far, but I wonder why he thinks it's mainly a brown envelope problem, and stops there. That to me seems shortsighted or dishonest.

 

If you set up a premise where state power is used to regulate relations between the weak and the strong in favour of the former, then find the mechanisms entrench positions (or by coincidence they become so), maybe it's entirely consistent to want more regulation to fix it or find better regulators rather than look at the premise or the method? From where we are though, and what we have you can't simply let Frankenstein's creation loose and expect happiness, but I will say that crony capitalism only stands up because of the state power supporting it.

 

So as Des says above I don't think he is saying, or thinking, it stops there.

 

I don't think you are being dishonest fwiw I think you're naive and I think you're wrong. I'm almost certain that we've had the discussion before that what you call crony capitalism I call capitalism. The idea that, unfettered by the overreaching arm of the state, the market more effectively distributes wealth and more effectively protects the most vulnerable I find too ridiculous to be interesting.

[smithdown]

Sounds like he should be writing for the Mail.

 

 

I think even the mail might baulk at describing mothers who use sure start centres as victims.

 

Some of these people even go to the capital! And they even get given sandwiches when they get there to the Sure Start Palace HQ that is made of solid diamonds! And they leave at a suitable time to get a train home again! And then and then and then they retire to live in huge castles on their own private planets paid for I tell you paid for by you and me and him and his mum. And what does anyone say about it? Nothing. That's what.

 

Yeah the mail could go with that.

[Molby]

I think even the mail might baulk at describing mothers who use sure start centres as victims.

 

Some of these people even go to the capital! And they even get given sandwiches when they get there to the Sure Start Palace HQ that is made of solid diamonds! And they leave at a suitable time to get a train home again! And then and then and then they retire to live in huge castles on their own private planets paid for I tell you paid for by you and me and him and his mum. And what does anyone say about it? Nothing. That's what.

 

Yeah the mail could go with that.

 

having said that, every single type of grant funding or state sponsored training scheme I have ever come across is a massive waste of money

 

not a complete waste, just about 80% of the money gets trousered by consultants whose only function is to exist and only concern is not to make a mistake and get sacked

[Swan Red]

having said that, every single type of grant funding or state sponsored training scheme I have ever come across is a massive waste of money

 

not a complete waste, just about 80% of the money gets trousered by consultants whose only function is to exist and only concern is not to make a mistake and get sacked

 

As someone who's entire career, in as much as I have one, is due to a training for work scheme I'm obviously a recipient of the 20%

[smithdown]

having said that, every single type of grant funding or state sponsored training scheme I have ever come across is a massive waste of money

 

not a complete waste, just about 80% of the money gets trousered by consultants whose only function is to exist and only concern is not to make a mistake and get sacked

 

 

that's your reaction to swivel-eyed criticism of sure start centre workers?

[Molby]

As someone who's entire career, in as much as I have one, is due to a training for work scheme I'm obviously a recipient of the 20%

 

the system yields results

 

but in such a ludicrously inefficient way that I can understand why people would rather the money got spent on paying for tax breaks instead

I'm not saying I agree with them btw

 

that's your reaction to swivel-eyed criticism of sure start centre workers?

 

nope, that's me going off at a bit of a tangent

[D.Boon]

but in such a ludicrously inefficient way that I can understand why people would rather the money got spent on paying for tax breaks instead

 

You mean the mean spirited, selfish sorts who don't directly benefit from it and cant bear the though of someone else, anyone else getting something they don't?

[Swan Red]

the system yields results

 

but in such a ludicrously inefficient way that I can understand why people would rather the money got spent on paying for tax breaks instead

I'm not saying I agree with them btw

 

Like I understand that all government can be accused of being grossly inefficient and so there's be some, Rimbeux, who would rather not pay the tax. It's not really a goer though.

[Molby]

You mean the mean spirited, selfish sorts who don't directly benefit from it and cant bear the though of someone else, anyone else getting something they don't?

 

 

no I don't; I mean people who think that if the money was spent on tax breaks, more jobs would be created

 

but obviously there are a few meanies around too

[Stevie H]

the system yields results

 

but in such a ludicrously inefficient way that I can understand why people would rather the money got spent on paying for tax breaks instead

I'm not saying I agree with them btw

 

so the system is fine in theory but sometimes put into practice less than efficiently? that's an argument in favour of managing things better and more effectively - NHS being a prime example - rather than scrapping the system altogether. the latter's a purely vested interests perspective.

[Molby]

so the system is fine in theory but sometimes put into practice less than efficiently? that's an argument in favour of managing things better and more effectively - NHS being a prime example - rather than scrapping the system altogether. the latter's a purely vested interests perspective.

 

 

you can scrap the system and come up with another

 

you can get proper people to run it, with salaries to match, sweeping powers, and from a private sector background

[Rimbeux]

Like I understand that all government can be accused of being grossly inefficient and so there's be some, Rimbeux, who would rather not pay the tax. It's not really a goer though.

 

Oh come on. I actually think the state is in a crappy position when it comes to judging efficiency. A business will go bust or lose customers to another one, and most people won't notice or care and will move on, not the same for the gov sector. It comes down to a discussion of what people would wish to be versus what can be, and lots or trial and error., learning and unlearning incentives and unintended consequences etc.

[Swan Red]

It was merely intended as a gentle tease but I think we both get that our positions are distinct enough that there's not much common ground.

 

I'm less concerned with whether a consequence is unintended than I am foreseeable

[Flight]

Councils to be given powers to ban peaceful protests that might disturb local residents

 

Anger mounts at ‘shockingly open-ended’ Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill that could also see youngsters banned from skateboarding, forbid teenagers from using local parks and prevent demonstrators from gathering outside council offices

 

 

Peaceful protests could be outlawed on the sole grounds that they might annoy nearby residents under contentious new powers being granted to councils, campaign groups warn.

 

The “shockingly open-ended” orders could also be used to ban youngsters from skateboarding, forbid teenagers from using local parks and prevent demonstrators from gathering outside council offices, it has been claimed.

 

The powers are contained within a little-noticed section of the Government’s Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

 

The new public spaces protection orders (PSPOs) are intended to give town halls the authority to tackle drinking, aggressive begging, and dog-fouling, in specified areas. The Home Office said it would stop public spaces being turned into “no-go zones”.

 

But campaigners claim that the legislation is so loosely worded that the new powers could be used to stifle legitimate demonstrations and criminalise youngsters.

 

They raised the alarm on the 30th anniversary of the women’s peace camp being set up at Greenham Common in Berkshire, which critics claimed was the sort of protest that could be thwarted by the new powers.

 

Concerns about the illiberal nature of some of the Bill’s provisions centre on plans to establish PSPOs, which are replacing alcohol-control zones, dog-control orders and gating orders as well as local by-laws.

 

They can be used by councils, following consultation with police, to restrict any activity deemed to have a “detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”.

 

The vague wording, and the failure to define the size of the areas to be covered, has led to fears they could be deployed to impose blanket bans on lawful activities.

 

People falling foul of the new restrictions would then be punished with on-the-spot fines, which could be issued by private security guards working on commission for councils.

 

The orders, which would last for up to three years, would be directed at “all persons or only to persons in specified categories”, a stipulation that has raised fears that certain groups – such as trade unionists or rough sleepers – could be discriminated against.

 

They could, for instance, be used to ban young or homeless people from a park.

 

The scheme appears driven by the Government’s commitment to a “localism” agenda and its determination to reduce the bureaucracy facing town halls.

 

The Home Office’s risk assessment of the measure acknowledged it could increase pressure on police, courts and prisons, but said the impact could be mitigated by the use of on-the-spot fines.

 

Peers are planning an attempt next week to amend the plans as they scrutinise the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.

 

Josie Appleton, the convener of the civil-liberties group the Manifesto Club, said: “This Bill has shockingly open-ended powers within it that could allow councils to ban everything from protests, to outdoor public meetings, to children’s skateboarding. The list is endless.

 

“The Home Office say they don’t think councils will use the law in this way, but this is not good enough. They should not be handing councils open-ended powers in the first place.

 

“While people will have the right to appeal, the processes involved are so expensive and complex that they will be beyond the reach of most protest groups.”

 

Isabella Sankey, the policy director for Liberty, said: “These next-generation antisocial-behaviour powers are bigger and badder than ever.

 

“Dangerously broad powers granted to regulate the ‘quality of life’ of the community will allow local authorities effectively to shut down activity in public places. Just like stop-and-search without suspicion, the collateral damage will be peaceful protest and other basic rights and freedoms.”

 

Janet Davis, the senior policy officer at the Ramblers Association, said she was worried that the orders could be applied to areas traditionally used for leisure and recreation.

 

“They could be used on wide-open areas, they could be used on commons, any land to which the public has access,” she said.

 

But Norman Baker, the minister responsible for crime prevention, said: “The Coalition Government is simplifying the complex array of antisocial powers introduced by the last government.

 

“This power will make it easier to stop the behaviour of those who act antisocially, turning our public spaces into no-go zones.

 

“It is not aimed at restricting legitimate users, such as walkers, whose activities are in fact better protected by this power than by the restrictive gating orders it replaces.

 

“Local authorities will consult ahead of putting an order in place and those affected will be able to appeal if they feel the order is not valid.

 

 

 

Protests that might never have been…

 

* Activists from Occupy London set up camp in October 2011 outside St Paul’s Cathedral to protest against corporate greed in the City and inequalities. Bailiffs moved in to clear the site the following February.

 

* The late anti-war protester Brian Haw first pitched his tent outside the Houses of Parliament in 2001 as Britain joined military action in Afghanistan. He was rapidly joined by large numbers of sympathisers, who remained for another two years after his death in 2011.

 

* Climate-change campaigners organised an eight-day-long protest in 2007 against airport expansion outside Heathrow. Similar demonstrations were mounted at Stansted airport, Essex.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/councils-to-be-given-powers-to-ban-peaceful-protests-that-might-disturb-local-residents-8940535.html

[Stevie H]

you can scrap the system and come up with another

 

you can get proper people to run it, with salaries to match, sweeping powers, and from a private sector background

 

well that just sounds like privatisation.

 

there's nothing wrong with the system that proper running of it wouldn't sort out. genuine responsibility and accountability on the part of the elected government. stop abusing the s*** out of it and run it properly. and accept that it's OK for some public bodies and services to not run at a profit.

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

Proper people from the private sector are often full of s*** too.