Posts Tagged ‘Pensioners’

Guy Debord’s Cat: Edwina Curry Claims to be Another Poor Pensioner

May 2, 2017

Another Tory, who lies about food banks also surfaced two months. Edwina Curry responded to comment by Buddy Hell of Guy Debord’s Cat on Twitter with the statement that she was a 70 year old pensioner, who occasionally works for the BBC and is on low pay and benefits.

The Cat had remarked that it was all right for her to sneer, as she didn’t have to rely on benefits to top up poor wages from work. And that was her response.

The Cat comments further on her reply that

She’s on low pay and she receives benefits? I doubt that. As the poster below remarks, she receives a generous final salary pension to which all former MPs are entitled. Although she may not be, in her words “filthy rich”, she has the kind of income that many pensioners can only dream of. Her appearance on I’m A Celebrity netted her a cool £100,000. As for her appearances on the BBC, let’s put it this way: she won’t be earning peanuts. Currie and her second husband also own two (possibly more) properties.

He also speculates that perhaps she thought he’d forgotten her comments about salmonella in eggs and her four year affair with John Major.

he concludes

If Currie thinks her pension isn’t enough for her to live on, maybe she could get a job at her local supermarket? Just a thought.

See https://buddyhell.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/edwina-currie-just-another-poor-pensioner/

No, Edwina Currie is very definitely not a poor pensioner. In fact, from what I’ve seen of her performances on television, she has absolute contempt for them, just like she and her party has for anyone else who’s poor. About a decade ago she turned up on the Clive Anderson show. Anderson asked her about the furore she caused when she was in Major’s government. The government had decided to cut pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. This understandably upset very many people. Curry’s response was to tell them to ‘wrap up warmly’. She repeated her comments, and added a snide remark about how it would ‘teach them’.

This offhand sneer at poor senior citizens went down as well as you would expect: the audience started booing.

This provoked an amazed response from Curry – she started peering around with the kind of fixed smile people put on when they know something’s not quite right, but don’t understand what. She really, really couldn’t understand how anyone could find her comment offensive.

She’s another one who’d fail the Turing test. In fact, there are probably ZX81s still out there, with 1 byte of memory, that stand a better chance of passing for human.

She also comes across as incredibly thick. She’s an Oxford graduate, and presumably had a very expensive education, but you do wonder how she got in. Way back in the 1990s, when Have I Got News For You was still more than halfway funny, she tried locking horns with Ian Hislop. Answering a question about some legal tussle she’d been involved in, she looked across to the editor of Private Eye and remarked ‘Aren’t you glad I didn’t sue you?’

To which Hislop frostily replied ‘Aren’t you glad, my dear!’

I think she’s now an MP for Derby. She turned up a few years ago on a documentary about starvation in Britain and the rising use of food banks. She was interviewed to give the Tory line. So standing in the middle of a bank’s stores, she repeated the lie that people weren’t using them because they were starving, but because it was cheap food.

Wrong. You can only use a food bank if you’ve got a chit referring you from the Jobcentre.

This was pointed out to her by the presenter. But, like a good little follower of Goebbels on the art of political lying, she repeated the lie.

She also made another appearance on a chat show a few years ago, in which she made much of her Liverpool roots. She put up on the accent, and tried to pass herself off as a real ‘Dicky Sam’.

Liverpool’s a great city. It has given the world the Beatles, Hornby Railways and Meccano. It has a brilliant museum and art gallery, and was one of the first museums in Britain to open a display on its role in the slave trade. In the 19th century, it’s literary and philosophical society was a major centre of scientific research in England. It has also produced the great writer and playwright, Alan Bleasdale. Unfortunately, Edwina Curry has also appeared to lower the tone.

She’s another Tory liar with a contempt for the poor, who tries to hide it behind further lies.

Advertisements

Vox Political: It’s Not GPs Who Should Resign, It’s May and the Tories

January 15, 2017

Mike yesterday put up a piece reporting a statement by a deputy head of the British Medical Association, Dr. Kailash Chand, that many senior doctors were considering leaving the NHS thanks to being made scapegoats by the Tories for the current NHS crisis in England.

Mike makes the point that it is indeed the Conservative government that is responsible for the crisis. They aren’t responsible for the NHS in Ulster, Scotland or Wales, and so those nations haven’t suffered a similar crisis in their health services. May and Hunt have further tried to blame everyone but themselves for the crisis, including pensioners, who they were claiming were filling up needed seats and beds.

Mike states that this time it has gone far enough, and we should be demanding their resignation. His article concludes

Theresa May seems keen to blame anybody but herself – she tried to pin the crisis on the elderly before claiming that A&E departments are buckling because she thinks GPs are lazy.

Enough is enough.

Whenever Mrs May, Mr Hunt or any other Tory (with the exception of Dr Sarah Wollaston, who has spoken up for the NHS, thereby proving she is in the wrong political party altogether) tries to run down the NHS, its doctors, nurses, specialists, workers or users, let’s just tell them:

“No. You are to blame. Resign.”

It’s a simple message, and easy to repeat.

Put it out there a few times and even our Tory-loving mass media might get the hang of it.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/01/14/why-should-doctors-resign-because-of-the-nhscrisis-caused-by-theresa-may-and-jeremy-hunt/

Mike also asks why high profile medical leaders and politicians are not demanding May’s and Hunt’s heads. Jacky Davis and Raymond Tallis have a whole chapter on the failure of the medical profession to challenge the government over their piecemeal dismantlement of the NHS in their book, NHS-SOS. This topic may well deserve a blog post to itself to examine and explain it.

But for now, I completely agree with Mike. May, Hunt, Andrew Lansley and every other Tory, who has worked to undermine and destroy the Health Service from within, should resign. Now.

And why not also politicos from New Labour and the Lib Dems, who were also so keen to destroy the NHS in the interests of their corporate paymasters? They should go too.

And the same pressure should be kept on their replacements until the political class gets the message:

Restore the NHS.

Fund it properly.

Support NHS staff properly.

Or go.

These points are not negotiable.

English Democrat Posing as ‘Anti-Corbyn’ in Batley and Spen Bye-Election

October 5, 2016

More tasteless inanity from the real Far Right. Hope Not Hate today has published an article reporting that the English Democrats are fielding their own candidate for the forthcoming Batley and Spen bye-election under what many people would consider to be a false name. This is the constituency of the murdered MP, Jo Cox. The other two major parties, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, have stated that they will not contest this seat out of respect for her. Unfortunately, the British Far and Fascist Right have shown their complete lack of anything like class, taste or decency in rejecting this strategy and putting forward their own candidates. Because they believe that in the absence of any competition from the Lib Dems or Tories, they might stand a chance. The English Democrats’ candidate is one Neil Humphrey, who is standing as ‘Anti-Corbyn’. He’s told the Electoral Commission that this is what other people habitually call him, but as the Hope Not Hate article makes clear, it’s far more likely he’s taken the name simply to present himself as some kind of alternative Labour candidate.

See: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider/meet-the-man-behind-batley-spen-con-5027

The organisation also revealed yesterday that the NF, BNP and Liberty GB’s Jack Buckby are also standing. Liberty GB is an anti-Islamic party. It’s basically the political wing of the English Defence League. Buckby himself apparently is sleeping on a friend’s floor somewhere in New York, where he’s also one of the organisers behind a massive party in support of Donald Trump. Hope Not Hate also have the poster for that too, along with the news that Buckby is also worried that New York’s own anti-Fascists will turn up to spoil the fun. So we have bigots of two continents meeting in unity. As Benjamin J. Grimm, your ever-lovin’ Thing would probably say, ‘What a revoltin’ development!’ The Hope Not Hate article also reports on some of the antics at the NF’s latest, minuscule demo in Birmingham, and that one of their number has been sentenced to 13 years for assaulting a pensioner. This crim also had an accomplice, who was also a member of the Far Right.

See: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider/these-nazis-have-no-shame-5026

I think I can confidently predict that none of these Far Right parties actually stand a chance of winning a seat in parliament. In fact, I’ll be surprised if they even get back their deposit. But the fact that they’re prepared to use the opportunity presented by Jo Cox’s murder, which has been linked to another Fascist party, and that one of these idiots is doing so under an assumed name, just shows how squalid and amoral they are. It’s just one more reason why decent people won’t vote for them. Quite apart from the many, many others.

Jackie Walker Sacked as Vice-Chair of Momentum due to Anti-Semitism Smears

October 4, 2016

Mike’s put up a number of excellent articles today commenting on some of the truly horrendous policies now coming out of the Tories. These include Jeremy Hunt’s continuing campaign to destroy the NHS, the Beeb’s report that they and the thinktank, The Institute of Fiscal Studies, now want to stab the pensioners in the back over benefits, and May’s continuing problems with the EU over Brexit. Not to mention it’s eighty years since the Battle of Cable Street, when Jews and Communists beat the living daylights out of Oswald Mosley and his stormtroopers when he and the rest of his Fascist thugs goose-stepped into London’s east end once too many.

But one of the main stories today has been the decision of Momentum’s steering committee to sack Jackie Walker as vice-chair due to the latest anti-Semitism smears against her. The committee voted seven to three to remove her, commenting that her remarks on the Holocaust Memorial training day were ‘ill-judged and offensive’. They also remark that they also consider her irresponsible, due to her inability to understand the concern her remarks have made. They state that she should have done more herself to explain her comments and to mitigate the upset they have caused. However, they recognise that taken individually, what she has said is not anti-Semitic, and applaud her record as an anti-racist.

Mike asks in the very title of his piece commenting on Mrs Walker’s sacking who was upset. He makes the point that her trust was betrayed by the event’s organisers, the Jewish Labour Movement. She questioned the definition of anti-Semitism the organisers declared they were working from. Her remarks were secretly recorded, and then leaked to the press. This was in a ‘safe space’, in which people were supposed to be able to speak freely on the issues for discussion. He also notes she also questioned why Holocaust Memorial Day was not open to all peoples, who have suffered similar genocides, and questioned the need for such high security for Jewish organisations, such as her daughter’s school. Mike states that in his opinion, the last question has not been satisfactorily answered.

Unfortunately, this incident has had a chilling effect. Two members of the Labour party Mike has been speaking to on Facebook told him that they would not attend any more training days as they could not trust the claim that they were ‘safe spaces’. And Mike himself makes the point that Mrs Walker did not cause the upset she is alleged, as she did not intend her comments to be made public.

Mike goes on to say

In any case, who has said they were upset? Were they genuinely upset or did they have an ulterior motive? This whole situation seems to be a deliberate attack on Ms Walker, to me.

He also asks

Why aren’t we asking the JLM what its intention was in allowing that recording to get out? Why aren’t we accusing that organisation of irresponsibility?

Mike applauds Momentum’s recognition that she hasn’t said anything anti-Semitic, and should not be expelled from the party. But he concludes that they have been talking to the wrong people.

See http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/10/04/momentum-sacks-jackie-walker-as-vice-chair-claiming-her-remarks-caused-upset-to-whom/

I have to say that I agree with Mike. This whole affairs looks very much like a set-up to trap and discredit Mrs Walker. It’s been done through the connivance of the Blairite’s friends in the Israel Lobby. The event’s organisers, the Jewish Labour Movement, were using a definition of anti-Semitism that deliberately conflates the Jewish people with Zionism. As I have attempted to show over the past few days, that definition is wrong. Many Jews are Zionists, but many others aren’t, and it is not anti-Semitic to oppose either Zionism or simply Israel’s long oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

I can see why Momentum have sacked Jackie Walker. This is the second time the Likudniks of the Israel lobby have attacked her as an anti-Semite, despite the fact that she is Jewish herself. They probably thought she was too great a liability, and that her continued position as Vice-Chair of Momentum would lead to further attacks on her and the organisation. I think they’re probably right on that as well. But sacking her won’t stop the attacks either on Momentum, or Jewish members of the party opposed to Israel or its racist policies. Rather I think the attacks will now be stepped up. Netanyahu’s baying thugs have a scalp, and have tasted success. This will just encourage them to attack others, including, obviously, those in much weaker positions without power, influence, or the ability to answer back.

I am very disappointed that Momentum have caved to the pressure placed on them by such vile people, and call on them to adopt a more robust attitude to responding to the lies and bullying of the Israel lobby against decent, anti-racist women and men, like Mrs Walker. This is a disgrace, and shows how squalid and shabby an organisation the Jewish Labour Movement is, as well as the grotty opportunism of the right-wing media.

Theresa May and the Faux-Feminism of the Tories

July 10, 2016

Okay, it appears from the latest developments in the Tory leadership contest that their next leader will not only be a woman, but probably Theresa May. May’s currently, I think, the Home Office Minister. Another Tory authoritarian, she’d like the spooks to have access to all our telecoms information to stop us joining ISIS and abusing children. Or at least, that’s what she says. Either way, she represents the continuing expansion of the secret state and its determination to pry into every aspect of our lives. Just in case we’re doing something illegal. In the polls Thursday night or so she won something like 144 votes compared to Andrea Leadsom’s 86 and Michael Gove’s 43. There was a shot of her at one of the party rallies, which showed Ian Duncan Smith, the former Minister in Charge of the Murder of the Disabled looking up at her with the same kind of rapture you see in pictures of Rudolf Hess at Nuremberg as he introduces Adolf Hitler.

May as the Modern Thatcher

The papers on Friday were full of the news of her probable victory. The Torygraph ran the headline, ‘If you want something said, go to a man. If you want something done, go to a woman’. Presumably this was a quote from May herself, trying to position herself as a go-getting woman of action, ready to sort out the mess the men have left. It’s also intended to get her support from Britain’s women. Look, she and her PR gurus are saying, I represent all the women in Britain, and their drives and frustrations in trying to get the top job. And I’ve done it, and, so vicariously, have Britain’s women through me. Vote for me, and we’ll sort Britain out again. The Mirror summed up her probable victory with the headline ‘Another Thatcher’.

That’s true, and it looks very much like the Tory party is trying to hark back to Margaret Thatcher’s victory way back in 1979, and the thirteen years of flag-waving, prole-bashing that unleashed. Thatcher was Britain’s first, and so far, only female Prime Minister. Her election was instrumental in getting the Tories female support, and presenting their agenda of poverty, welfare cuts, joblessness and general immiseration as somehow empowering and progressive. It presented a faux-feminist veneer to what was an acutely traditionalist party. Thatcher did not see herself as a feminist, but nevertheless, her lackeys in the press ran features on her deliberately aimed at women and gaining their support. When she was ousted, Germaine Greer, who had been bitterly critical of her time in No. 10, wrote a piece in the Groan ‘A Sad Day for Every Woman’. And this propaganda line continued with other female Tories afterwards. I can remember a piece in the Mail on Sunday discussing what politics would be like in a female dominated House of Commons about the time Virginia Bottomley joined Major’s cabinet. It imagined Britain as an anarcho-capitalist utopia, where everything was privatised, and instead of the police neighbourhoods hired private security guards. And it ran the notorious factoid that’s been repeated and debunked ever since: that managing the country’s economy was like running a household. Women, so the article claimed, automatically had a better understanding of how the economy should be run through their role controlling the household budget. It’s actually rubbish, as the Angry Yorkshireman, Mike over at Vox Political and a number of left-wing economists and bloggers have repeatedly pointed out. For example, when budgeting for a household, you try to avoid debt, or pay it off as quickly as possible. But no-one has wanted to pay off the national debt since at least the late 18th century, and governments contract debts all the time with the deliberate intention of stimulating growth, as well as having the ability to manipulate circumstances in ways that the average householder can’t. They can, for example, affect the economy by setting the value of their currencies in order to promote exports, for example. The Japanese have deliberately kept the Yen weak in order to make their exports less expensive and so more competitive on foreign markets. They can also alter, or affect exchange rates to control public expenditure outside of immediate state spending. Ordinary people can’t do any of this. But nevertheless, the lie is repeated, and as we’ve seen, believed. A little while ago a man in the audience at Question Time challenged one of the politicos there with not running the country properly. He claimed it should have been obvious to anyone who’s had to run a household. Or possibly their own business.

Women Suffering the Most from Tory Misrule

In power, Thatcher – and the Tories’ policies in general – have hit women the hardest. Women tend to work in the poorest paid jobs, those least unionised, and so with the fewest protections. They are also more likely than men to be active as carers, with the immense responsibilities and pressures that entails. The Tories’ austerity policies have seen more women laid off, and more suffering cuts to hours and pay, with worsening conditions. These have been inflicted on male workers and carers as well, of course. I personally know blokes as well as women, who’ve been put on zero hours contracts, of have had to fight battles with the DWP to get disability benefits for their partners. Women haven’t been solely hit by any means, but they have been especially hit.

Tory Feminism only for the Rich

But I’ve no doubt that the Tories will try to hide all that, and positively divert attention away from it, by pointing to the success of May in finally getting to No. 10. It’ll be presented as another crack in glass ceiling preventing women from getting the top jobs. I’ve also no doubt that there will be some noises about making sure that business, industry and parliament becomes more representative of the country. There will be loud announcements about getting more women into parliament, on the boards of business, and in male-dominated areas such as science and engineering.

But this will all be done to give power and jobs to women from May’s background: well-heeled, well-educated middle class public school gels from Roedean and the like. Rich, corporate types like Hillary Clinton in the US. It isn’t going to be for women from council estates and comprehensive schools, ordinary women working back-breaking jobs in factories, as care home staff, nurses, cleaners, shop assistants, office workers and the like, all of whom are increasingly under pressure from the government’s austerity programme. They, and the men alongside whom they work, doing the same jobs, aren’t going to be helped by the Tories one little bit.

The Thin Veneer of Tory Liberalism

May’s faux-feminism is part of a general thin façade of progressivism, which the Tory party occasionally adopts to promote itself. Cameron came to power pretending to be more left-wing than Tony Blair. When he took over the Tory party, he made much about shedding the party’s image of racism and homophobia. He cut links with the Monday Club, went around promoting Black Tory candidates. Gay MPs were encouraged to come forward and be open about their sexuality. In power, he ostentatiously supported gay marriage, presenting it as Tory victory, even though it had practically already been introduced by Tony Blair in the guise of civil partnerships. Cameron and IDS wanted to be seen as liberal modernisers. But all their reforms are extremely shallow, designed to disguise the rigidly authoritarian and hierarchical party underneath. A party determined to make the poor as poor as possible for the corporate rich.

Generational Differences in Voting

Looking through the stats with friends on Friday, it seems that there’s a marked divergence in political attitudes between young women, and those over 55. The majority of women over 55 tend to vote Conservative, according to the stats. I know plenty who don’t, and so this can be challenged. My guess is that, if this is accurate, it’s probably due to the fact that women generally haven’t worked in the kind of manual trades occupied by men, which require considerable solidarity and so have produced strong union bonds, like mining, metal work and so on. It’s also possibly partly due to the prevailing social ideology when they were born. There was a marked lull in feminist activity between women finally gaining the vote in 1928 or so and the rise of the modern women’s movement in the 1960s. During those forty years, the dominant social attitude was that women should concentrate on their roles of wife and mother. Many firms in this period would not hire married women, a practice which caused immense hardship to women, and families generally that needed two incomes to make ends meet. Also, generally speaking, support for the Tories is higher amongst pensioners.

Younger women are more likely to be left-wing and socialist. If correct, this generally follows the trend of the younger generation being more idealistic and progressive than their elders.

I hope that despite all the pseudo-feminist verbiage and lies the Tories will spout from now onwards, trying to make themselves more presentable to the nation’s female voters, women will recognise them for what they are, and vote them out. As soon as possible.

IDS Has Resigned, But Curb Your Enthusiasm…

March 19, 2016

Someone just as bad if not worse will probably be around shortly.

The big news this morning is that Ian Duncan Smith has finally walked. Several of the commenters on this blog posted pieces about his resignation late last night, with due expressions of not the slightest bit of grief. In fact, quite the opposite. Much joy was felt by them and indeed by very many other people up and down the country. And who can blame them! Ian Duncan Smith is, after all, the wretched mass-murderer, who has used the benefits sanctions regime he inherited from Bliar’s New Labour to immiserate hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Under him, 590 people have died of starvation, poverty and neglect. Some by their own hand. A quarter of a million more have been pushed into anxiety, depression and mental illness. And for all that he’s resigned as head of the DWP, IDS is still head of a party which has forced 4.7 million people into ‘food poverty’. That, to you and me, is being literally on the breadline and not having enough to eat, or wondering where your next meal is coming from.

I’m surprised that he’s resigned, but the signs were all there. Over a week ago he was whining about how unfair it was for people to blame him from the hardship and misery his cuts were causing, when it was Labour that started them. Well, Blair and Brown did. But he and Cameron got in by pretending that they were going to be more left-wing, more caring than New Labour. That was the central promise of Philip Blonde’s book, Red Tory. And I distinctly remember George Osborne telling everyone that he was going to end the disastrous Private Finance Initiative, that’s saddling the country with mountains of debt for the profit of private companies running public services. But that’s another election promise the Tories conveniently forgot once they were in power.

Mike over at Vox Political has written several pieces commenting on Smith’s departure.

In his first piece about it, Mike urged a note of caution before we accepted that there was anything altruistic about Smith’s motives.

Yes, it’s great that he has gone. But I don’t think it’s over a matter of principle, no matter what he might say. Iain Duncan Smith has lied far too often for me to take anything he says at face value.

No, he’s either trying to be clever about the EU referendum, lining himself up to be in Boris’s good books if the vote goes against Cameron and Osborne, or he’s putting distance between himself and the Department for Work and Pensions after a judge ruled that potentially damning documents about Universal Credit must be published.

It seems the documents may show that Duncan Smith (I can’t be bothered with the nicknames – feel free to substitute ‘RTU’ or ‘the Gentleman Ranker’ if you like) misled Parliament and the public, time and again, about the floundering new benefit system.

Sick and disabled people will remain the targets of brutal benefit cuts. The unemployed are still enmeshed in a Kafka-esque nightmare of conditions they have to satisfy in order to draw their benefit. Social housing tenants are still persecuted by the Bedroom Tax.

Duncan Smith happily presided over more than £28 billion worth of cuts in payments to the most vulnerable people in the United Kingdom. That’s why This Writer doesn’t believe he has had a crisis of conscience now.

You can read the rest at: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/03/19/never-mind-the-ides-of-march-its-the-march-of-ids/

I think Mike’s right. This has far more the look of a piece of political manoeuvring than any kind of statement of principle. Mike in the above states that IDS resigned when the cuts he was complaining about had already been shelved. Which is a curious way to protest. He also put up this piece, reporting a story in the Mirror that Nadine Dorries has stated that IDS begged her to vote for the cuts just before he decided to walk. See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/03/19/nadine-dorries-slams-iain-duncan-smith-for-begging-her-to-vote-for-disability-cuts-before-resigning-mirror-online/

In the statement from IDS reported on the TV news, Smith has apparently claimed that the reasons he resigned is because the cuts demanded by George Osborne were falling entirely on people of working age. This bears out what Mike reported in another of his pieces written about Smith’s resignation today: that he resigned from frustration at being blocked from killing pensioners. Mike writes:

Okay, it might not have been framed in quite the way expressed in the headline above, but that’s what the latest claims about Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation seem to be saying.

The allegation is that he was unhappy that the Conservative Government was continually targeting its cuts on working-age benefits, and wanted pensioners to take some of the pain as well, contrary to a directive from prime minister David Cameron that senior citizens’ benefits are not to be touched.

He would have taken away universal pensioner benefits like free bus passes, together with the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments.

The effect of these cuts would have been a large increase in pensioner deaths – as predicted by the Taxpayers’ Alliance when that organisation suggested such cuts, only a few months ago.

See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/03/19/iain-duncan-smith-quit-because-he-wasnt-allowed-to-kill-pensioners-claim/

The Taxpayers Alliance, you understand, is the astroturf organisation the Beeb turns to whenever there’s a debate about government expenditure. This is the pressure group that campaigns for further reductions in taxation. It claims to be politically independent, but its leadership is composed to a man of paid-up members of the Tory party. It’s at best a satellite of Tory fellow-travellers, if not actually a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Tory Party Plc (People lying continually). A few months ago they were urging the Conservatives to cut pensions, arguing that it wouldn’t have any effect on the party’s electoral fortunes, as by the time the election came around, all their victims would have died anyway. This is what passes for humour at Taxpayer Alliance Towers as they’re waiting for sentencing for tax fraud.

Mike’s report has more than just the ring of truth. I can remember Mike himself posting a piece a few years ago reporting that there was some friction between the Unctuous Spawn of the Baronet of Ballymoney, George ‘Lionel’ Osbo, and the Gentleman Ranker. Osborne wanted cuts that could only come from inflicting them on pensioners, according to IDS. As this is one of the demographic groups where Tory support is the strongest, Osbo rejected making them share the burden of the cuts as being ‘very courageous’, in the sense deployed by Sir Humphrey Appleby. Now it seems this report is essentially correct, and IDS has resigned rather than face the continued frustration of having to concentrate on killing and impoverishing those of working age, rather than killing and immiserating the elderly.

There is a bright side to this though! The street wags and practical jokers have been up and out with the jolly japes. Mike has a picture up of the fake ‘missing person’ ads which have been placed on a lamp-post asking where the great man is.
Answers on a postcard, please.

URGENT! Missing person alert!

Private Eye on Osborne’s Cuts to ESA

October 16, 2015

Private Eye in their issue for the 24th July – 6th August published this article in their ‘HP Sauce’ column criticising George Osborne’s decision to make further cuts to benefits for the disabled.

From WRAG to RAGS

Chancellor George Osborne’s justification for yet more deep cuts in financial support for disabled people is that he is merely eliminating “perverse incentives” not to find work. If only that were true.

Until now, those who were found by strict health tests to be too sick or disabled to work but potentially capable in the future qualified for “work-related activity group” (WRAG) employment and support allowance (ESA). So someone requiring lengthy rehabilitation after an accident, for example, or with certain kinds of mental illness, would receive a payment which included an element to cover the extra disability-related living costs they would face, such as travel, care and health visits. It was subject to regular reassessment.

As Osborne well knows, most of those in WRAG are not working because they are simply too ill to do so – or they face fierce discrimination when trying to find work. But as part of the latest round of “austerity” measures, from 2017 new applicants will now receive the same weekly payment as fit unemployed people claiming jobseekers’ allowance. This means disabled people will lose nearly £30 a week, or £1,500 a year.

This is on top of other cuts, including the closure of the Independent Living Fund, further reductions in employment support and disability living allowances and personal independence payments, restrictions to Access to Work, and reductions to social care packages – not to mention the bedroom tax.

No wonder the government continues to ignore calls from its own watchdog, the Social Security Advisory Committee, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission for an “impact assessment” of austerity measures on disabled people. It would confirm that, far from a “fair and efficiently targeted” policy, benefit cuts have hit some of the most vulnerable hardest. After all, the government’s latest figures on low income show that working age families with a disabled member now have higher rates of poverty than pensioners.

Vox Political on the Tories Gradually Stripping the Elderly of their Pensions

February 23, 2015

Mike over at Vox Political has this article asking the question Cameron promises to protect pensioners’ benefits. Do you believe him? Mike points out that Cameron broke his election pledges not to introduce means testing for certain benefits, and to the NHS. He stated that spending on the Health Service was to be ring-fenced against cuts.

He broke these promises, and is set to break his promise to protect pensions.

The pensionable age is being raised. Firefighters will be sacked, and thus lose their pensions, if they fail the fitness test. Francis Maude wishes pensions to be accessed only through the internet, which will prevent many pensioners from getting theirs. The Tories are also going to end the protection for those on Pension Credit, and Iain Duncan Smith is mooting ending the free TV licences, bus passes and winter fuel allowance as part of his benefit cap. And pensioners will definitely be subject to the bedroom tax.

Mike’s article begins

Why should you believe a word David Cameron says?

He has repeated a pledge not to introduce means testing for benefits such as bus passes, TV licences and the winter fuel allowance, if elected (not re-elected; he didn’t get enough support for that in 2010) in May.

This is the man who “looked down the barrel of a camera” (as he describes it) in 2010, promised to protect the NHS, and to tell any cabinet minister proposing cuts to frontline services that they should go away and think again.

He is denying the state pension to increasing numbers of people with a staged plan to raise the pensionable age. Members of Parliament, meanwhile, will receive transitional protection as the pensionable age rises – meaning they won’t miss out. Members of the public fund 60 per cent of Parliamentarians’ pensions.

The article is at: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/02/23/cameron-promises-to-protect-pensioners-benefits-do-you-believe-him/.

The Republicans in America were moaning under George ‘Dubya’ Bush about how greedy senior citizens were. They would very definitely have liked to cut their pensions, but were well aware that if they did so, they’d lose vital electoral support. And so they complained bitterly about their greed and how selfish they were, when everyone else was having to tighten their belts.

The Tories have copied much of their rhetoric and strategy from the Repugs. There can be little doubt that like the Republicans, they want to get their hands on senior citizens’ pensions and cut them.

Do not trust anything Cameron says, and do not give him your vote.

Pareto, Liberismo, Free Trade and Conservative Fascism

April 11, 2014

Vilfredo-Pareto-Quotes-5

Vilfredo Pareto: Free Trade economist who believed in the importance of elites.

I’ve posted a number of piece criticising the attempts by Conservatives, such as the Dorset MEP Daniel Hannan, to smear Socialism through the argument that Fascism was simply one form of it. American Conservatives in particular seem to believe that any form of state intervention or collectivist approach automatically equals Socialism, which is in turn equated with Communism and Nazism. Mussolini started his career as a radical Socialist, and there were elements of Socialism, and specifically Syndicalism, in Fascism. Fascism was, however, an unstable and frequently incoherent mixture of different and contradictory ideologies and attitudes. Syndicalism was one element. Others were the middle class, Conservative ideologies of free trade, private enterprise and liberismo.

Liberismo was the ideology of the Italian middle classes. It was associated with the belief in a balanced budget and sound, stable currency, and reflected the interests of the middle class groups with fixed incomes, who felt themselves vulnerable to inflation. These were rentiers, pensioners, civil servants, professionals and White collar workers. These groups looked to Fascism to halt rising prices. At the same time, Mussolini presented the Fascist movement as defending private enterprise and the small businesses from Socialism and organised Labour on the one hand, and the large trusts and cartels of big business on the other. They resented the way the government, under their influence, had maintained a policy of high tariffs and high state expenditure. The Italian Nationalists, who later merged with the Fascists, had attacked international finance and the major banks. The crash of the Banca di Sconto associated with the Perrone brothers and the Ansaldo conglomerate in 1922, resulted in a number of small investors losing their savings. The Perrone brothers and Ansaldo were major figures and backers of the Nationalists, who blamed their bank’s failure on the government blindly obeying the dictates of the rival Banca Commerciale.

Fascist elitism and contempt for democracy also had part of its origins in the ideas of the economist Vilfredo Pareto. A professor of Political Economy at the University of Lausanne, Pareto was a staunch supporter of free trade. This in turn led to his contempt for parliamentary democracy and belief in the importance of elites. He also valued myth, considered as powerful irrational ideas and images, as a means through which governments and movements could inspire their supporters to action. His works also explored the use of force and consent. He argued that the ‘foxes’ of the old, patrician order, would now be overthrown by ‘plebean’ lions, and denounced the humanitarianism of contemporary liberal politics as a symptom of a political order in decline. As the above quote makes clear, Pareto believed that contemporary democracy was merely an ideological disguise for the way the elite continued to hold power while maintaining the impression that it was the masses who were in control of government. Mussolini read Pareto when he was a radical Socialist, and took over his idea elitism, and utter contempt for parliamentary democracy and humanitarianism.

Free trade, private enterprise, and a balanced budget, became elements of Fascism. This is, however, denied by Conservatives, who seem to believe that they stand apart from and opposed to it in a way which the Socialist parts of Fascism do not. Liberismo and Pareto’s elitism may also explain the strongly anti-democratic trend in Libertarianism. Both von Hayek and Mises served in Vollmar Dollfuss’ Austro-Fascist regime. Dollfuss banned the Austrian Socialist party on the grounds that it was preparing a revolution. It’s unclear whether this was true, or merely a pretext. The regime was allied to Mussolini’s Italy, and looked to the Duce for protection against annexation from Hitler’s Germany. After Hayek moved to America, he also travelled to Chile after Pinochet’s coup to examine the implementation of his economic doctrines there. Pareto’s prediction of the victory of the plebs over the patricians may well have been another piece of myth-making – a powerful image intended to inspire fear in the middle classes, and force them to act against the threat from the working class. Hayek in his absolute support for private enterprise, free trade and willingness to serve Right-wing dictatorships, seems to have shared these attitudes. This is despite Libertarianism’s claim to represent traditional Liberalism. Libertarianism and its adherents share the same attitudes as the Conservative followers of liberismo who joined the Fascists.

For further information, see ‘Pareto, Vilfredo’, in Philip V. Cannistraro, ed., Historical Dictionary of Fascist Italy (Westport: Greenwood Press 1982) 392.

Adrian Lyttelton, The Seizure of Power: Fascism in Italy 1919-1929 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1987).

Another Angry Voice Critiques Osborne’s Budget

March 22, 2014

George Osborne predictions

The table of Osborne’s failed predications from Another Angry Voice, illustration just how inaccurate they are.

The Angry Yorkshireman has provided an excellent antidote for the approving hype surrounding Osborne’s ‘business friendly’ ‘worker’s budget’ on Wednesday. Simply entitled ‘Budget 2014: The AAV Analysis’, This succinctly describes it as ‘some pre-election bribes and some myopic tinkering with a fundamentally unstable economic system’. The Angry Yorkshireman begins by comparing Osborne’s figures now, with those he confidently gave at the start the present government. These show just how far from the reality his predications then were, and how the situation now is far, far worse than the optimistic view Osborne then had. This also effectively shows, even if this rest of the Angry One’s article didn’t, just how much worse off everyone now is under the Tories. Except the very rich, of course.

He then examines the immensely harmful effects Osborne’s budget has had on workers, pensioners and savers, before noting the way Osborne increased VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent. He has a short paragraph stating that Osborne’s budget shows that even more privatisation is on the way, and criticises the way the education system is being sold off to ‘unaccountable pseudo-charities’, who pay their managers massive salaries while paying the actual teaching staff very little. He then critiques the government’s policy towards the banks, which consists in maintaining them, and their massive privileges for senior staff at the expense of the working population, who have to suffer wage restraint and cuts to welfare services.

He then attacks the government’s housing policy. This is the ‘right to buy’ scheme, which will further reduce government stocks of council housing as the government is making sure no more is being built. He then discusses the increases in government funding on flood defences and potholes. this is tacit recognition by the government that their earlier cuts to these services were wrong. However, he believes that for the government now to return some of the money they cut from flood defences after the floods have occurred is an insult to everyone, who had to leave their homes because of them.

He also devotes a paragraph to criticising Osborne’s optimistic and unrealistic economic forecasts in the budget, before concluding that

The only possible conclusion from the headline figures is that Osbornomics has failed in its own terms. The fact that by 2015, Osborne will have borrowed £207 billion more than he claimed he would, yet the economy will be £128 billion smaller too is absolutely damning stuff, but you won’t hear anything about this from the mainstream media.

Many of the measures in the 2014 budget can be seen as the pre-election bribes they are intended as, yet these modest pre-election gains the Tories are providing dwindle into insignificance in comparison to the huge losses the majority of people have suffered since 2010.

Perhaps the most damning thing of all is that in the very same week that the Bank of England admitted that the private banks run a money creation cartel, and a NASA backed study warned that continuation of the neoliberal economic orthodoxy threatens irreversible systemic collapse, the Tory party have once again offered no fundamental reform to the way the economic system works, in favour of shoring up the status quo, and protecting establishment interests.