*****
On Tuesday Labour MPs are expected to vote for Duncan Smith’s emergency bill which will steal money straight from claimants illegally sanctioned by the DWP.
These laws are being introduced simply to cover up Iain Duncan Smith’s incompetent drafting of legislation, the Commons' and Lords' inability to recognise it, and the DWP's inability to clearly explain to claimants what is expected of them.
What is really worrying is that they can, and are prepared to legislate to change retrospectively, leaving poor people out of pocket to the tune of £500 in some cases, when it was all their fault.
Bravo Labour, that's the way to win votes anywhere that they think that slave labour is the British rather than the Brutish way.
Bravo Labour, that's the way to win votes anywhere that they think that slave labour is the British rather than the Brutish way.
*****
HM Revenue and Customs has been roundly criticised by Margaret Hodge's Public Accounts Committee, for failing to answer 20 million phone calls a year and for failing to respond to 33% of letters within 15 days. Its response is to close 281 local centres where face to face communication can take place, sacking 1,300 staff in the process. That should work then!
Call Kaye with an e just let her knickers slip there Q from caller "Where are Blairs babes now?" Kaye in response " Unfortunately they are not in power now" Quickly retracted and corrected to "Unfortunately for them they are not in power now" hmmm as if we didn't know her views
ReplyDeleteOooops... as Freud would have said!
ReplyDeleteI can see producer type people shaking heads and speaking rapidly in her headphones... don't give us away you silly woman!
Call Kaye this morning... Grrr, risible.
ReplyDeleteMithering on about Tavish's speech, if a caller came on with a nationalist view point she'd say something like "... Well obviously that's your view as a nationalist..." meanwhile if its someone talking from a unionist basis; nothing, no qualifying remark at all.
Its is funny when she gets exercised, as she was being by that guy from Rights for men and boys (and women who like them) or what ever it was, she didn't like that at all.
They should stick her back on Loose Women, that was more her speed.
I have to say I've never listened to the woman, Pa. But from everything that people say, she is the very limit (as my granny would say).
ReplyDeleteI'd have liked to hear her with someone from a rights for men group!!!
The BBC is starting to rattle down. There was a complaint on a phone in on the World Service the other day from a woman who lives in India. She was concerned that when Mr Chavez died the BBC announced: "The controversial president of Venezuela has died".
Would they, she wanted to know, do the same when George W or Tony Blair died!?!
I hope the two of them do not keep us waiting too long and that the red-hot poker awaits!
DeleteRed hot poker sounds about right, John.
ReplyDeletetris
ReplyDeleteI await Tuesday and if Labour vote with the Torys to attack the unemployed............
with forced work.
Its just unbelievable makes me feel quite sick in my stomach it really does
Liam Byrne is going too far by endorsing Iain Duncan Smith’s failed programme
DeleteWe are living in a state where the government thinks these youths are so worthless that it will happily defy the judiciary to retroactively change the law. The judiciary is meant to be a check on state power and to enforce the rule of law, and anyone who gives even a shred for the rule of law or constitutional matters should worry about IDS’ willingness to treat it as irrelevant. He is nothing less than a megalomaniac.
It is more galling that Liam Byrne is endorsing this (by either voting for it, or abstaining – it’s not clear) At least Labour’s Future Jobs Fund was more targeted, much more successful in placing people in paying jobs, and did not subsidise the private sector.
Byrne is endorsing a travesty of a programme that goes against everything the Labour party stands for. He is endorsing IDS’s “strivers vs scroungers” rhetoric.
This is a programme whose sole purpose is to massage down unemployment figures; simply to subsidises private companies with free labour who would otherwise have to pay those people a full time wage.
DeleteThis used to be not allowed. The unions stopped it happening in the days of John Major's Project Work 17 years ago.
Hey Niko... We've been worried about you.
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean about this. It's appalling that Duncan Smith would do this to save a few million pounds which by law he owes.
Anyone who supports it is plain bad.
I feel for you Niko. I trust the SNP will vote against, not that that will make much difference!
Labour are serious about deficit reduction. They are open to a cheaper alternative of trident
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21827278
Dunno why they have to have one at all. Germany has managed without one; so has Spain, Italy, Poland, Japan and other similar sized nations.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP have no right to bemoan the vicious Tory cuts, after all their separatist platform would see all MOD spending end.
ReplyDeleteThat would kill off the remaining clyde shipyards, it would see mass unemployment across key constituencies (including many which they represent!).
The only way to protect MOD jobs in Scotland is to vote Labour. There really is no other option.
Dean
DeleteYou used to write some rubbish when you were a Tory, but you are writing even more rubbish, while now being a pretendy tory which Labour are.
Yes independence will see all Westminster MOD spending end (hallelujah) but Scotlands MOD spending will continue. Since we currently get charged more than is spent in Scotland on defence we will spend less money, but it will be better targeted to Scotlands needs and more importantly spent in Scotland.
Just how many MOD jobs in Scotland were lost during 13 years of Nu tory/Labour with the two "bs" in charge. Whats that you said Dean 20000 MOD jobs in Scotland lost while Labour were in charge.
Looks like even Niko can no longer stand the deceit from Westminster Labour these days. I thought ATOS would sicken him about Labour, but slave labour has made him finally see the light.
@Dean
ReplyDelete"see all MOD spending end"
In favour of our OWN military and spending which would be higher than what the MOD currently spend in Scotland. For Example a study by the Royal United Services Institute claims that annual costs would drop from £3.3bn to £1.8bn.
The report - co-written by economist Richard Marsh and Stuart Crawford, a former British Army Lieutenant Colonel - examined what the armed services of an independent Scotland would look like.
“A’ the Blue Bonnets: Defending an Independent Scotland”, states that a Scottish Defence Force would be ‘necessary, feasible and affordable.’
The authors envisage a Scottish a defence force with an army, navy and air force but without nuclear weapons.
The report detailed a Scottish Navy with a surface fleet of up to 25 ships, including Type 23-class frigates but with no submarines. A Scottish Air Force would include about 60 aircraft including BAE Hawk, C-130 Hercules, Chinook and Sea King helicopters but no Typhoons or Tornados.
The report also suggested a Scottish Army could have 10,000-12,500 personnel.
The document continues: “Scotland can argue that it has paid its share towards the British armed services’ inventory and therefore should be able to negotiate most of what it needs to an independent Scotland.”
It also says, “As for whether an independent Scotland can afford its own armed forces, the answer seems to be an unequivocal yes”.
The cost of their proposals is half the cost of what Scotland currently contributes to the MoD.
"kill off the remaining clyde shipyards"
The MOD is doing a good job of that already what with building ships in Daewoo Korea.
Ooops forgot to add to my last post that although taxpayers in Scotland contribute more than £3.3bn a year to the MoD, less than £2bn is spent on defence actually in Scotland.
DeleteDean... I think that answers your question.
ReplyDeleteDon't believe what Butter Together is telling you. It's a lie.
on the retrospective legislation over at the Telegraph (yes I know!) -
ReplyDelete"Mark Hoban, the work minister, says that it “cannot be right” that unemployed claimants receive an undeserved windfall payment.”
I am happy to report that BTL he's getting pelters. Not even Telegraph readers agree with this appalling treatment.
The ConDems: Mosleyites in Tory clothing with a yellow streak for a tie.
ReplyDeleteBloody hell PP...
ReplyDeleteDoes he think that if the unemployed get mugged by a big fat ugly bald thief, they shouldn't get the money that said big fat bald thief stole from them back, even after the judge has told him off for doing it?
It "cannot be right" Hoban? Bloody Tosser.
What in the name of goodness would Hoban ever know about what was right. He's a bloody Tory.