Friday, July 28, 2006
Why can't things be as simple as Michael Moore's suggestion to make Bavaria the Jewish homeland, we all know Germany owes the Jews big time, why is it the Palestinians who have to suffer?
Sure…. Just wake up next to Dachau concentration camp every morning. That will help them put history behind them won't it? While we’re at it why don’t we:
- rehome the Chechens to a Siberian Gulag
- Set up a pure catholic town near the Mays prison
- And give Al-Qaeda an Islamic State next to Guantanamo Bay.
To say Michael Moore really wants to help the Palestinians you don’t see him over there do you? Moore just wants to bash the US plain and simple…. That’s where he makes his money.
Special mention today must go to Sarah Teather (using Tim Roll-Pickering’s favourite illustration of her) as she is clearly swapping a soapbox for an earth tray. Hats off to you Sarah…
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many (a) primary and (b) secondary schools have toilets fitted with (i) hippos, (ii) cistern and flush controls and (iii) other water saving devices. 
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the required toilet to (a) male and (b) female staff ratio is in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. 
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) England, (ii) each region and (iii) each local education authority have outdoor toilets that are still in use. 
Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to make it a requirement for all bicycles to be fitted with bells at all times whilst being ridden. 
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what stock was transferred from the Government wine cellar to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005-06. 
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister who provided the tractor that the Prime Minister used to launch Red Tractor Day, in Downing Street on 20 April; and where it was manufactured. 
It’s recess time in Parliament now dear Guttersnipes so the Round Up will return when they do.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Nope Blears…. Yes my dear Guttersnipes, Hazel “Squirrel faced shite talker” Blears has been wheeled out to crush the Cameron phenomenon once and for all. All around Guttersnipe Towers I can see the fretful faces of Tories as she turns our light at the end of the tunnel into the beams of the oncoming train.
She’s given an interview to Progress. Progress? I hear you say… yes practically an in house magazine. My that’s going to bring the floating voters in on a tidal wave isn’t it?
Here’s how Progress describes itself..
“Progress is the independent organisation for Labour party members and trade unionists.”
Yeah well independent… about as independent as say… The Independent.
The article starts…
“Blears is dismissive of the charge that Labour erred by giving Cameron the space early on to define himself. ‘You don’t do this immediately within a week of someone being elected as the new leader of the party; you don’t put them in a box and say “this is how we are going to campaign for the next four years”.’”
So why then Hazel were all your campaigns about lack of policies and flip flops eh? Just tune into PMQs one day… you’ll hear something along these lines:
DC: Can the Prime Minister explain why he will not permit a public enquiry into the 7th July bombings? (Or such a question)
TB: Let me remind my Rt. Honourable friend that he has no policies, will tell anybody anything and under the Tories we had 15% interest rates.
All the time they come out with the same shit, and the only person who swallows it is Blears. Even Blair doesn’t believe this now.
She recognises, however, that ‘a resurgent Tory party’ now poses a greater threat to Labour than at any time since the early 1990s: ‘Until relatively recently I don’t think people were interested in the Tories. People were embarrassed to admit to being Tories. That position has changed.’
Yup… people are ashamed to be Blair voters now aren’t they?
The local elections revealed that ‘where they are traditionally strong, the Tories are now coming back quite hard. The vote that stayed at home is now prepared to actually come out.’
It would appear that the Tories are strong in local councils then wouldn’t it Hazel?
“Blears now thinks it is time to take the gloves off. ‘I think we are beginning to see emerging some difficulties with some of his policy choices. If you look at the stuff on the European People’s party [which Cameron pledged during the leadership campaign to pull Tory Euro MPs out of] now he can’t find a home for them that is more respectable than the fascists.”
Oh can’t he? We have a deal negotiated for 2009. You might think this is a turnaround but didn’t your leader pledge to remove us from the EU altogether. Doesn’t that sit him with the parties you consider fascist? Your leader either wants to sit with the fascists among UKIP (not that they’re fascists from where I’m sitting) or he reneges on his pledges… which is it squirrel face?
The Czechs don’t want to know, the Poles don’t want to know, he is going to be homeless in Europe.
Actually the Czechs do want to know so you’ve fecked that one up haven’t you? If Blair’s such a strong dominating force in Europe then where is our rebate eh bat features? Why are we handing money back to these people for nothing in return? Wake up to the facts will you?
The Tory leader, charges Labour’s chair, is also beginning to betray signs of ‘really poor strategic judgment’ in other areas too. On issues surrounding crime and security, ranging from some of the anti-terrorism measures to the serious organised crime bill and ID cards, the Conservatives are now ‘not sure where they are and whether to align themselves with the civil liberties lobby’.
Er…. Hazel I believe that Cameron has pledged to scrap ID cards… yes scrap them, there’s a policy. Would you like to steal it like you’ve done for the past decade? Please do. Nobody wants an ID card, we don’t want a database, we don’t want a smoking ban. Get with it.
The government’s proposals, by contrast, are ‘where the public are’.
Ahahahahaaahahahaa…. For feck’s sake. When Blears looks out of her front window does she see a big sign saying “Welcome to Narnia – please drive safely”? Where the public are? Does Blair even know where the public are since be banned them from Westminster? Fuck me woman you just spout the line regardless of evidence don’t you?
Blears accepts, however, that Labour has to ‘do something more than just criticise him as a PR man’, and she admits that he has been doing ‘some very clever positioning, a replay of our book from 1997’.
Not nice having your good ideas stolen is it? Welcome to our world. Although I’d rather live in your world Hazel… you get free Turkish Delight.
Blears is moreover unimpressed with the statement of aims and values Cameron published at the beginning of the year: ‘motherhood and apple pie, anybody could have written it; so it’s not quite his Clause IV moment.’
You’d rather that a supposedly credible party sold its beliefs and values down the river in exchange for power? I believe that is what’s referred to as a Clause IV moment. Remember Hazel? When you scrapped Clause IV?
I love the next bit….
“So what will Labour’s future line of attack be? ‘I think what the public are interested in, when it comes to making the big decisions, is: is this the man you want to be prime minister? Can you trust him if he says one thing and does another, “
Like reform the NHS, stem immigration, be purer than pure… do you need me to go on?
That then starts to make people think: if you can’t trust him on his policy issues, can you trust him with your mortgage, can you trust him with your job, can you trust him with the interest rates, when [Labour’s] strength is being absolutely solid on the economy?
How can we trust you with the interest rates Hazel? You have absolutely no control over them as the decision is taken by the Bank of England. So let’s ask how can we trust someone so eager to claim credit for something they’ve not done?
Nonetheless, Blears does not believe that ‘there is a great tidal wave sweeping the country that says we want to get rid of a Labour government.’
I’m speechless… utterly speechless.
The party chair dismisses, however, any notion that Labour’s third term thus far has been somewhat ‘lacklustre’. ‘I think it has been more exciting than that.
Oh it’s been exciting, we’ve had…
- Foreign murderers on the rampage
- Two Jabs, Two Jags, Two Shags, New Hat, No Job, Nice Casino to keep us amused
- Some serious investment… sadly into the Labour party in exchange for a peerage.
I can’t take much more excitement.
Even Stalin couldn’t ignore the facts to this level.
The fact that trouble has boiled in the Middle East has brought the tinfoil hat brigade out in force. As usual whenever I’m looking for a laugh at what the crackpot left are spouting, and Galloway’s nowhere in sight today, I look at the BBC Have Your Say section.
I include a prime selection below:
“It's about time that the world stood up to the Israeli/USA axis of terror. These two countries are responsible for all the grief.”
- OK I’ve not been keeping a close eye on this but I think the number of Israelis kidnapped by the Americans equals none.
“When will the US say stop? Once Lebanon is a pill of rubble !! They are the ones placing the whole Middle East in danger, how long do they think the other Arab Countries will stand back and not defend there fellow Arabs?”
- Again the Americans are not kidnapping Israelis, not lauching rockets at Haifa and not invading Gaza.
“If someone was attacking our allies like Israel is attacking Lebanon would we sit idle ?”
- errr… Israel is our ally, and we are sitting idle.
“This is a war crime, and no different to what happened when Hitler's government kicked off World War II. It's outrageous!”
- and I imagine with such an analogy backing them the Israelis will then go on to massacre 6,000,000 jews in Auchwitz for good measure eh? Twat!
- This is really much more like when Hitler started lobbing indiscriminate V1 and V2 rockets at London, and as I believe, we went over there and kicked his ass.
Do they watch the same news as I do?
Thursday, July 20, 2006
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many brothels he estimates there are in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many 50 metre swimming pools there are in England; and where each is located. 
Mr. Bone: To ask the Leader of the House (1) how many Prime Minister's questions sessions there were in each year since 1990; 
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abattoirs there were in England in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
More next week...
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
While still trawling through the last week's news to catch up I found the following:
Company directors who employ illegal immigrants could be struck off as part of Home Office reforms, it is reported.
Can anybody think of a guilty party here? Guttersnipe can…
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
“Cherie Blair goaded the Kremlin yesterday when she volunteered legal assistance to Russian campaigners seeking to challenge a law that imposes strict controls on activists.
Downing Street made clear last night that Mrs Blair's visit had been officially endorsed and broke from its usual reluctance to endorse her activities.
"We do not hide the fact that we have concerns but we believe it is right and proper to engage with Russia in a broad range of topics," said the Prime Minister's spokesman.
But the gesture risked deepening a rift between Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin.
Jesus… we manage to keep a lid on the Duke of Edinburgh.. it’s been years since he’s managed to escape and start talking about them slanty eyed Chinese. Can’t the supposedly most powerful man in Britain keep a lid on his wife?
If Guttersnipe here is off to a function on business and the good Lady Guttersnipe is going with him, it stands to reason that she doesn’t waltz off into a corner and start pissing off the host.
Let me bring you back to the line mentioned above:
“we believe it is right and proper to engage with Russia in a broad range of topics,"
Yes it is right and it is proper, but I don’t recall any of us voting that venomous harpy into a position of international diplomacy. What the fuck was she thinking? Was she thinking at all?
Who’s betting that we the good taxpayer funded her to feck up international relations as well eh? Bet you a signed copy of the Hutton report we did.
Would the next party in power have her stoned in Wembley Stadium please?
Crime bosses who cannot be prosecuted for lack of evidence will be given a ''super-Asbo'' to try to disrupt their activities, the Home Office said yesterday.
Oh for fuck’s sake… more useless shite just flows out of this establishment every fecking day doesn’t it?
This really is going to have the criminal classes pissing in their shoes isn’t it? I mean ASBOs? Can’t we have the death penalty or slavery or something? No just more of Blunkett’s fecking brainchild.
Let me make a few things clear to the Home Office.
Crime is already illegal and yet the criminals don’t fecking care. What good have ASBOs ever ever achieved in the fight against crime? I’ll tell you how much. None… none at all.
Jesus, you could ASBO Lord Levy and he’d still get on the phone saying “come give some money to Blair on the quiet”.
What we want for these people is the following.
ARE YOU LISTENING REID??
Are you? Switch your fecking ears on you headline grabbing moron:
- Prison sentences that actually are a deterrent.
- Stop hamstringing the police with paperwork and let them catch criminals
- Stop hamstringing police with a fecking enquiry and lawsuit every time they try to catch a criminal.
- Get off the fecking front page and into the Home Office you idiot.
ASBOs haven’t stopped people like this:
What make you think they’ll stop people like this?
... and 57 days since the Labour Party auctioned a copy of his inquest signed by Cherie and Campbell.
Don't forget that Guttersnipes.
Same old Roy, same old class warfare bollocks. His basic tone today is that David Cameron is too posh to care about you ordinary folk… this is a bit rich I think coming from someone sat in the House of Lords, Cameron might descend from aristocracy but he has neither title nor royal patronage. Shouldn’t those be things that Hattersley opposes?
Well like most of the loony left they generally oppose these things as far as the electorate having them but are happy to take them themselves, see Diane Abbott and private education for a classic example.
“My mother always wore a hat. For years my father was bullied into cleaning the car each weekend, and regularly mowing the grass (front and back) and sweeping the drive.”
Sounds like a real charm doesn’t she?
“After he died, my mother did the jobs herself for as long as she could and, like him, always cleared the snow from the stretch of footpath we called our own. In fact, my mother was respectable enough to be a lower-middle-class Tory.”
Ah I see Roy… being a Tory is all about looking down on others and keeping your drive neater than the Jones’s isn’t it? What a complete diatribe.
“Door-chimes were not her style. But that does not matter. Nor does the idea - absurd as it is offensive - that only Tories keep their brickwork pointed.”
Have you ever heard this idea? Pointed brickwork is a sign of a Tory? I imagine all those Labour voting builders must be having a real crisis of conscience now. Honestly I’ve heard Blair and Blears come out with some shit but nothing as ridiculous as this.
“But the difficulty her admirer found in reconciling my mother's policies and personality revealed a psephological truth that David Cameron would do well to recognise. Thousands, perhaps millions, of Conservatives think that by putting a blue sticker in their window at election time they are demonstrating that they are a cut above their neighbours.”
Or of course it could demonstrate that they are something else, say a member of the Conservative party perhaps? What do you think Roy? Do you also think that by putting a Labour sticker in your window it makes you somewhat lower down the social scale? Take note of this any Labour supporters out there, you appear to be getting judged more harshly than us.
“Unless Cameron appeals to the nastiest (and most pathetic) instincts of the Tory faithful, he is certain to lose some of his core vote. Hague and Howard overdid it. They led a party so overtly nasty that they sacrificed some of the hypocrisy on which Conservatism depends.”
And socialism doesn’t depend on hypocrisy then Roy? I don’t really think that Labour people should be talking to us about losing our core vote. Theirs went years ago when they sold their beliefs to Tony for a handful of magic beans.
“Pretending that the Conservatives are the "nice party" will not work. It is not true.”
This is great… you might as well write “Don’t vote Tory.. they’re evil”. Well Roy - Robespeierre, Stalin, Mao and Hitler were all socialists… who’s the nasty party now?
“Yesterday I angered some by focusing on the impact of Lord Levy's arrest on Tony Blair…..”
5 days later and we do not see any new posts…
… where has he gone?
… Has he angered the wrong people?
… is this an extraoridnary rendition?
Keep your eyes peeled Guttersnipes.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Right, the catch up session can begin with my initial words on Lord Levy’s arrest:
It’s about fecking time that the ermine collars got felt. Ever since these jokers came to power it has been a question of what they could get for themselves.
Brown seems to have disappeared as he usually does when the wheels start to come off, but Blair has been speaking out in defence of their actions.
Blair says no honours wrongdoing
Tony Blair has said no-one in the Labour Party has sold honours in return for financial backing to his knowledge.
Yeah… right! It’s amazing that he can quote every word and vote that David Cameron has done but when it comes to where 14 million quid comes from isn’t it?
The PM told BBC One's The Politics Show there was nothing wrong with working peerages being given to party backers.
And here he is right…. Bear with me here. Personally I see nothing wrong with getting to the end of a good solid parliament and saying to Person A “Thanks for all the hard work, and the million or so quid welcome to the House of Lords”. Nothing wrong with that at all.
But there’s a huge difference between that and “give us some of your money and it guarantees you a peerage”.
Mr Blair also said he had seen no evidence of ministerial misconduct by his deputy John Prescott, and that he would carry on as prime minister.
Its amazing how little evidence reaches the Prime Minister isn’t it? Give it a couple of weeks and we’ll be hearing “there’s no evidence of a war in Iraq… it’s all a Daily Mail conspiracy.”
Honestly it drives me up the wall… we can invade a country based on suspicion of weapons but we can’t get rid of Prescott based on first person testimony.
"Nobody in the Labour Party to my knowledge has sold honours or sold peerages," Mr Blair said.
BOLLOCKS! JUST UTTER BOLLOCKS!
The prime minister said the rules over party funding might have to be changed, with the possibility that taxpayers could be asked to contribute.
This fecking gets my goat…. Yes Gutternsipe’s goat is well and truly got. We don’t need to change the way parties are funded, we need the fecking government to stop being such a fecking dishonest group of money grabbing fecktards. That’s it, plain and simple. The system of party funding works. It’s worked for years, but you abused it. What needs to change is the people not the mechanism.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Keep up the good work ye Guttersnipes in power…
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers there are, broken down by region. 
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if she will list the deposited papers placed in the Library by her Department since 2000; and when each was published. 
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of mandatory electronic tagging for sheep.  – Have they been given ASBOs?
Mr. Francois: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many light bulbs there are in his Department; and how many are energy efficient. 
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what her policy is in respect of tourism in the Antarctic. 
Mr. Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many communal and commemorative bonfires are estimated to have been organised in Northern Ireland during July and August in (a) 1995 and (b) 2005. 
More next week…
Possible major catch up session tonight...
In the meantime please do check out all the blogs in my link list, I'm sure you'll find like minded people.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
… these things are usually Labour Party ideas on education, frankly they make no sense at all. Like today’s bright ‘clear blue sky thinking’ featured on the BBC:
“A proposed system for measuring students' progress in sixth forms and colleges in England would have awarded them points for failing their A-levels.
Students with good previous exam results would have had more points for failing than less capable candidates.
School and college leaders said the idea, co-ordinated by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), was unacceptable. Ministers asked for a rethink.”
Rewarding failure is wrong Guttersnipe thinks…. It’s a good job we have all those ministers to come up with a better idea isn’t it?
Now a different progress measure is being tried, ignoring fails altogether.
What? What the feck are they thinking? Clearly Stalin has risen from the dead and got himself a plumb job in state education.
Those who failed would be awarded a number of points equal to their average score in all subjects at GCSE level.
He raised various objections to this as a "wholly unacceptable" method - one of which was that a fail would be accorded different points depending on how bright students were.
In reply, the School Standards Minister, Jim Knight, said his department had asked the LSC to take a fresh look at how fails could be included in the learner achievement tracker "without affecting either the integrity of the system or the outputs it produces".
Basically they’ve been instructed to look at the scores and eradicate any measure of failure. It makes you want to burn the place down doesn’t it? Given the size of government education failures these figures will probably take some effort to ignore.
Mr Martinez (The LSC's head of quality assessment) said: "It's not perfect but it's what people have signed up to."
Yeah mate…. People signed up to Thalidamide, Porton Down, Pals Battalions, Communism and the Third Reich but it didn’t make them a good idea did it?
Read the whole thing
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Now Mr. Cameron is used to dealing with incisive, intelligent media people so Polly should be no trouble at all.
Emoting over hoodies is no substitute for a policy:
Cameron's love-laced rhetoric on law and order makes no mention of prison, sentencing policy or funding
Well one would imagine not given that he was speaking to the Centre for Social Justice. They are a foundation that deals with the preventative work with children and the charity sector amongst many other things.
Talking about sending kids to prison or adding 5 years onto Borstals isn’t going to be relevant here. You wouldn’t go and talk to the CBI about Housing Benefit so why would you talk to the CSJ about prisons? You see Polly, Cameron’s job is to talk relevantly to the audience he has, this contrasts neatly with your job which seems to be to spout bollocks twice a week with scant regard for the people reading it.
It is delightfully funny to read the expostulations from the mighty organs of conservatism. "How much more can we take?" howled the Telegraph leader yesterday. "Barely a week goes by without David Cameron distancing himself from some elemental Tory beliefs." They warn him: "Don't lose sight of the doctrine pursued triumphantly by your immediate predecessor: prison works."
Hang on a minute Polly…. I haven’t actually seen David Cameron distance himself from any traditional Tory beliefs yet. Conservative policies and ideas are all about getting the state out of our lives, creating opportunity and rewarding hard work. Everything, and I mean everything that David Cameron has said since he took the leadership has been on this theme. Everything.
But while we’re on the subject of abandoning the party’s core values can I draw your attention to the following piece of elegant prose:
“‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.’
Recognise that? Yes Polly… it’s the Labour Party Clause 4. Oh how we forget the sweeping under the carpet of that cornerstone of traditional belief when Blair and your one-eyed Norse Warrior came in.
As for wellbeing and love, who could be against him?
Well apparently you and everyone who’s been in the press to criticise him.
The Home Office minister Tony McNulty called it "wash and go" policies. Cameron leaves not a drop of policy clinging to him as he dips in and out of the milk of human kindness. He says kids on estates without money for concerts or the seaside are "bored, bored, bored ... hoodies are more defensive than offensive ... putting things right is not just about law enforcement ... we have to show more love" to those who stay within the law while still ensuring "painful consequences" for those who don't.
And now we see the great Toynbee contradiction… it never fails does it? There’s always one, at least. How on earth can you be saying that he makes no mention of prisons, sentencing etc when you have quoted him as saying “ensuring painful consequences”? Much as you complain about the bloggers criticising your articles Pol at least we’re reading them… you clearly are not.
If someone in Blair's government used the words love, understanding and emotional development so often in a law and order speech they'd be on the fast track to the backbenches, propelled by the end of John Reid's steel-toed boot. What a bizarre political moment this is.
That’s because if someone in Blair’s government used the words love, understanding and emotional development nobody would believe them. I believe there are rules about deliberately misleading parliament.
Deconstruct most of Cameron's speech yesterday at Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice to a congregation of charities and its key message is this section: "You, the social entrepreneurs, the voluntary organisations - the people doing the patient, painstaking work on the ground - if the police stand for sanctions and penalties, you stand for love." By implication, he contrasted them with the state where "when it comes to these difficult issues we're obsessed with measuring the quantity of inputs. How much money. How many more staff. Whether targets are met ... Our record is lousy; yours is great - so you should be in charge." As the word "charity" suggests, he seems to think it can all be done on love alone - never mind the money or the staff.
Oh for fucks sake Polly, even your visually challenged fecktard fantasy taxman is starting to see that nothing in the UK is underfunded it’s just vast quantities of money are being mis-spent. Increasing the money doesn’t improve the quality of the output as your last pay rise clearly demonstrates.
Cameron is right… the state’s record in this area is a resounding Class 1 fuck up. The charity sector’s record in this area is a stunning golden success. So why don’t we put them in charge? Although I suppose if jobs went to the people who could do them well you’d be working at Burger King wouldn’t you?
Talking to her yesterday [Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh], she said she had given up frontline work to raise money, working seven days a week to write applications, begging businesses for the £20,000 per child she needs. "I feel like a prostitute," she said. To build on what she knows, to train others to do it elsewhere, she needs stable funding from central government.
Actually Polly I would agree she needs stable funding but she will not care where it comes from. After all if you needed £3m would it matter whether it came from Blair or Branson? As for your insistence that she has to beg businesses for £20K per child this is what charities do, they raise funds by donation. What else do they do? Are we supposed to think “Look at the pitiful state we’re in when charities have to ask for money”? What are you thinking woman? At £20,000 a child I believe you could afford 7, so get donating!
Many of the state's youth crime prevention programmes are already delivered by charities. Crime Concern delivers many of those designed to draw in the children regarded as at highest risk of offending. On a Rochdale estate, it achieves a 70% fall in calls to the police complaining about young people. It cost £350,000 - but researchers estimate it saves £665,000.
Again she’s offer her own message here. This is provided by the charity sector, not the state and it works! Your own statistics show that it works. If it works Polly why oh why are you hell fecking bent on changing it to a system more like SureStart, which doesn’t fecking work? WHY? WHY? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY?
The Audit Commission estimates that £42,000 on effective early interventions in children's lives from birth to adolescence spares £153,000 in incarceration.
Just to digress a minute I would like to refer you all to FactCheckingPollyAnna on this note, it’s good…. Very good!
Now I continue…
But Cameron's Love Actually is free. Charities do it, the state doesn't - and never mind the money.
Who said this was free? OK Polly who, other than you, said this was free? The government spends money on these programs already. The trouble is that the government dictates how their money is going to be spent and naturally as with all of OUR money that our cavalier feckwit chancellor spends it’s going in the wrong place. So why not put the charities in charge? Why not give them the freedom to decide how that money is spent? It works Polly, you said so yourself.
Monday, July 10, 2006
“Mr Narey said that he was particularly concerned about disclosures last month that Mr Reid was prepared to consider importing a version of “Megan’s law”, the US legislation that provides parents with information about paedophiles who have been released from prison into accommodation in their area.
Mr Reid’s decision followed a campaign by the News of the World for the introduction of “Sarah’s law”, named after eight-year-old Sarah Payne, who was murdered in 2000.
Child protection groups have cautioned that this could provoke vigilante attacks on the homes of released sex offenders, resulting in more children being abused by offenders who had been driven underground.”
It’s not often I agree with the liberal leftie Guardian types of the world but here I have to…. Let’s imagine you’re a parent and you are given the information that a known nonce is living near your school. You have three basic choices:
- You tolerate this – I doubt any parent is going to stand for this. All parents fear for their children’s safety and rightly so. If you found out that the local kiddie fiddler was living by your house with binoculars at the ready you would never rest, something would need to be done.
- You change where you live – This is only going to benefit a small minority, i.e. the people who can afford to buy a house at the drop of a hat. Add to that the costs and hassles of not only changing house at short notice but changing school as well. If you are in council housing for example the council aren’t going to move you because you’re not a priority case. You’re stuck with it unless you buy.
- The Nonce moves away – well the government aren’t going to rehouse this person since he/she is living in a government approved location anyway so they’re staying. Unless that it you are prepared to take the law into your own hands. Cue a march down the street with flaming torches and pitchforks aloft returning gleefully with old Johnny Nonce’s head on a pole.
Sorry, but we are better off not knowing. What should be done is that these people shouldn’t be near children anyway if you’re of the opinion that they are criminals then they should be locked up, deported or whatever we can do. If you’re of the opinion that they are just the poor mentally ill then they are clearly the dangerous mentally ill and they should be locked in treatment. The old loony bins have been painted as inhumane but they can offer secure treatment which these people should have. This sort of treatment is just not provided by Care in the Community.
Anyways… I digress
Mr Narey criticised the Prime Minister for his negative attitude towards children, in particular the Government’s use of words such as “yob” to describe them.
“I want to speak out about the demonisation of children, not just by the tabloid press, but by Government, including the Prime Minister, even though I am a huge fan of his.
“They are routinely using the words ‘yob’ and ‘feral’ to describe young people. Can you imagine applying that to any other minority? It’s unimaginable.
Nicely timed matey… just as our Mr. Cameron is criticising the government’s stance on yob culture.
“We have convinced ourselves that we are the first generation to be troubled by children, but we are not. The problem is that we have become more intolerant of a lack of conformity.
Actually the issue is that the government has become more tolerant rather than intolerant. I personally don’t have a problem with groups of teenagers. I have a problem with intimidating, threatening, violent and anti-social mobs regardless of age.
An ASBO is not a deterrent, it’s about time an unpleasant punishment for the criminals amongst the young was brought in.
“What I really hate are those signs you see in shops near schools ‘only two children at a time’. It is like saying that every child is a potential thief.
“We need to open up a debate on childhood. If you had politicians speaking more positively about young people, then they might get a better press,” he said
Absolutely but it’s a lot easier to intervene and just ban children, ban hoodies, ban ringtones or whatever Labour can think of other than actually bring in a workable system of punishment and deterrent.
Not all children are yobs and thugs but the government doesn’t do anything about the yobs and thugs amongst them, nor do they let us do anything about it ourselves. It’s one or the other guys. Help us out.
A FORMER leading Home Office civil servant has accused Tony Blair and John Reid of failing to keep talented senior staff and trying to “buy off” the tabloid press.
“There are some fine people in the Home Office. Never a week goes by without them ringing me to ask how I got out. There’s going to be a haemorrhaging of talent,” he said.
Mr Narey, who left the Home Office last year to run Barnardo’s, the children’s charity, also condemned Mr Reid for attacking his own department. Two weeks after becoming Home Secretary, Mr Reid declared to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was “not fit for purpose”.
When you employ people, as any employer should note, it is not wise to appear on the front page of the Sun telling the entire world that you think they have done a crap job and are unfit for the job at hand. Through all its troubles in the past few years you haven’t seen the Chairman of Marks and Spencer coming into the press saying “Well the staff are crap so we’ve got a difficult task”.
Basically Reid has the business sense of an earwig and he’s in charge of one of the biggest employers in the Europe. Although if you want a comforting thought it’s not the biggest employer… that’s the NHS and it is run by Patricia Hewitt.
Mr. Narey continues with blistering style:
Mr Narey, who was Second Permanent Secretary in the Home Office under David Blunkett, said: “There are a lot of very talented, hard-working people in the Home Office. For them to be traduced for a soundbite was scandalous. You cannot go into an organisation and trash it.”
Apparently this is false it is perfectly possible to go into an organisation and trash it, Reid has done just that. The very idea of ministerial responsibility is lying out in the back yard with Reid, he’s stormed in blamed everyone other than ministers and then fecked off out the door weaing a flak vest to look tough. The fact is Reid we don’t want a tough Home Secretary we want a competent Home Secretary. You are not one.
Friday, July 07, 2006
"A NERVOUS Labour Party has arranged for two senior Cabinet ministers to help John Prescott during his stewardship of the country during August, The Times has learnt.
This year he will be supported by Hazel Blears, the Labour Party chairman, and Jacqui Smith, the Chief Whip."
Laugh? I nearly shat! The Labour Party appear to have such confidence in him that they leave the squirrel faced shite talker to steady the tiller with him, and don’t get me started on what Prescott could achieve when assisted by a whip.
I mean what does he need the help in doing? Is he going to be short of croquet partners or something?
It’s enough to make your lungs bleed isn’t it?
“There is also a plan being discussed at the highest level to send Mr Prescott “on tour” during the summer to escape hostile treatment from the London-based media.”
No doubt this will be at taxpayers expense just like the last one. Guttersnipe here thinks that if he couldn’t escape the press in America then he’s not going to escape the press anywhere, we have London based journalists in Afghanistan for feck’s sake.
Short of sending him to a Siberian Gulag I can’t think of anywhere they can’t follow him… wait… hold and cherish that thought.
"Labour sources denied that Ms Blears and Ms Smith had been chosen to act as “minders” to present a safer pair of hands. They said that Labour was concerned about a summer offensive from a resurgent Tory party. "
It’s not like you haven’t given them the ammunition is it guys?
One said: “We have arranged for both Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith to be around, not at the same time, but over the whole summer. This is both for government lines and for Tory attack.”
It’s not often I pity a Labour cabinet member, but being minded by Hazel Blears has got to be more embarrassing than being caught spit roasting a rent boy. I'll bet this was Brown's idea.
I’ll be back once the therapists stop me laughing!
"However his reign ends, whatever his legacy may be, one moment will always stand out as a monument to Tony Blair. It was that remarkable, utterly unexpected pledge back in 1999 that Labour would abolish child poverty by 2020."
Yup Polly… we remember it, we remember sitting there and thinking he’s mad. Given that poverty is measured as the bottom percentage of society you’re never going to abolish it, and there are only 2 ways to reduce it:
- Decrease the population (unlikely given Labour’s penchant for immigration)
- Redefine the word poverty to mean anyone living in a household earning less than nothing (I think that’s the route they’re more likely to take.
"That sunny morning he sprung it on an astounded assembly of economists and poverty experts. The hall rippled with people turning to one another to ask if they had perhaps misheard? Did he really mean it? And if so, did he fully understand how radical it was?"
No, I think you might find that the ripple was probably caused by people stifling their laughter and spraying the person in front of them with coffee. He had no idea how radical it was, as with all New Labour’s big fecking announcements he only had a good grasp of how radical it sounded. There was never any intention of reducing poverty, unless it was their own.
"The answer was yes, he meant it, even if he is seized with spasmodic regret. It is one of his more admirable traits to nail himself to targets that matter, and work out afterwards how to do things that seem near impossible."
And then just not do them…
" (Abolishing hospital waiting lists by next year is another example.) "
Yeah good luck with that one too….
"But his poverty promise is by far the toughest social pledge any British politician has ever made, harder even than the founding of the NHS. And yes, he probably well understood the Herculean scale of the task.
Certainly the chancellor did and he has pursued it as a highest priority, through thick and thin. It has needed his fierce protection from ministers, and sometimes from his neighbour, clamouring to spend money on more popular vote-winners: the poor don't vote, they show no gratitude and the well-off don't know or don't care."
Yup here we go… she was in danger of sounding like she liked Blair then wasn’t she? Now she’s back on form drooling over (as DK would put it) her pet ‘useless cyclopean fuckwit’.
"The first quarter-way target was missed as 700,000, and not a million children, were lifted out of poverty. Instead of celebrating success, the headlines called it "failure", so why stick to an impossible target?"
Instead of celebrating success? Success? Polly, THEY FAILED. In fact they failed so brilliantly that Save The Children commented:
“Save the Children blamed the Government's lack of a clear strategy for failure to meet the child poverty target set by the Prime Minister in 1999. The charity commented: "The Government needs to sort out the absurd mess of 11 different departments working on child poverty without a joined-up strategy."”
Put yourself in the fearful picture of actually working to targets will you? You know, like they do in the private sector where making money is essential to keeping your job and paying your mortgage.
Ask any salesman, they have targets. If they get to the end of the year and have only achieved 70% of their target this is known as a failure. You are called into the manager’s office told to hand back your company car and enjoy your new career involving a moped and an application form for Domino’s pizza.
Labour failed Polly, I’m surprised that you haven’t got used to this by now.
"Because this is emblematic, the unshakable moral underpinning of this government (which Labour defectors would do well to remember). "
If by unshakeable moral underpinning of this government you mean “saying something then not delivering it then you’re right on the mark here Polly. Unfortunately the rest of us would refer to unshakeable moral underpinning as:
- Not selling peerages
- Not selling your whitewash reports into the deaths of people who spoke out against you.
- Not calling for people to be imprisoned without charge
- Not sexually harassing your staff and boning your diary secretary
"It stands as a constant rebuke to the Tories that they doubled child poverty during their 18 years, leaving appalling social wreckage. It is such an effective moral back-stop that David Cameron has been obliged to sign up to it too. That is how seismic New Labour's effect has been on the political landscape, marking 1997 as just as decisive a shift in political geography as 1979 or even 1945."
Ah yes…. Under the Tories children would be forced down the pits and up chimneys wouldn’t they? Then they’d wring their caps in gratitude as they are paid a penny a year. Shouting “gawd bless ya squire” as they skipped off home to be beaten by their parents. Actually I doubt the 9th Earl of Carlisle lived like that did he?
Polly… shut the fuck up for 5 minutes and have a look at this article, it’s got a nice picture of Gordon on it that you can get all hormonal over:
"Relative poverty in the UK may have risen since 1997, rather than fallen, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The usual measure is the proportion of households whose income is less than 60% of the median household income.
That suggests that the poverty rate fell from 25% to 22% of households between 1996/97 and 2002/03.
But the IFS says that if household spending is measured instead, then over the same period of time the poverty rate rose from 20% to 22%. "
Yup…. Poverty actually gets worse under Labour, but don’t worry we’re only measuring it in ways that make us look good just like we do with crime.
"Those who say there's no difference should look at how the Tories are being hauled from the blue to the red side, with poverty a prime marker in the ideological tug of war. "
Nope… there’s a difference, the Thatcher years rewarded people who wanted to move up in the world, hence we got the age of the yuppie who had an idea, put the work in and socially climbed. You don’t hear the words ‘upwardly mobile’ that often these days do you?
No… you can throw state money at the poor and they will remain poor. Sooner or later you have to stop giving them free money, their status will not have changed, it’s just not being financed any more.
The way to decrease this sort of thing is to make people free of the state. Yes Polly to get the state the feck out of their lives and generate responsibility, hard work, effort and a desire to be something better rather than a constant desire to be just given more money.
She continues to bang on about the costs etc and I’ll not bore you with the details as I’m sure Mr. Worstall and FactCheckingPollyanna will keep you up to date on this.
"The cost of poverty in cash and social dislocation is far higher than the cost of making sure all families thrive. Even so, the price of abolishing it is very, very high. What will it take? Notionally, another £28bn a year if it were to be done entirely through direct redistribution in cash through tax credits. How much is that? It is the cost of buying, perhaps, a new Trident replacement every single year forever. Or look at it another way, it would still only be 2.5% of GDP, not at all unaffordable. "
Not at all unaffordable is it? This is why we cannot afford to bail out the NHS with the £2.bn it needs. I’m sure we could scrap the Trident project Polly but we’re not going to deter North Korea from nuclear war by offering him a tax credit are we?
"But of course it's all more difficult than that. To pour so much cash into credits and benefits would be politically impossible: it would wreck work incentives to pay out-of-work parents more than they could earn. And anyway, cash alone does not solve everything.
It will take vastly more spending on social programmes, on education and skills in perpetuity. Consider that Sure Start children's centres are multiplying by seven with only double the cash, at risk of spreading their effect too thinly. "
And not working either…
"What's to be done? Dreaming Swedish dreams on near US tax levels leads to this impossibilism. Sooner or later, it has to be spelled out in public. Does Britain really want to be more Scandinavian and if so, will we pay the price?"
Hang on I thought you worshipped the Scandinavian dream or have you changed your mind since Mr. Worstall kept pointing out that they have no minimum wage of state health service? I thought you dreamed of shacking up their to be gobbled by your king?
Either I have you all wrong or you’re now just changing your stance to suit whatever you’re writing. I think the latter.
Of course Polly you can do your bit… if £28bn is going to get 300,000 children out of poverty why not make a £140,000 start?
He does.... quite often and as such his link and comments yesterday led to 543 people who had never read the Spleen before coming and taking a look.
Now back to the ranting.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Gaelic speakers there are in Scotland;
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being taken to reduce levels of stress in rural areas. 
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): What discussions he has had with Sesame Street Ltd on programmes to improve understanding between young people of different traditions in Northern Ireland. 
“Blair's Muslim views 'unhelpful'
A leading Muslim has accused Tony Blair of playing an "unhelpful blame game" by suggesting moderate Muslims are doing too little to challenge extreme views.
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said Mr Blair's remarks could hamper the good work being done. “
I’m actually going to side with Blair on this one, don’t worry I’m not going soft but frankly Blair has never been out on the town demonising muslims. Blair didn’t blow up several tube trains and a bus last July, Blair didn’t blow up a train in Madrid, Blair did not fly 2 jets into the World Trade Centre and Blair has not marched through London suggesting that we should behead all those who offend Islam.
Muslims did all of these things.
According to Bari:
“Moderate Muslims had promoted dialogue and peace in their communities since the 2001 attacks in the US”
Where exactly? I’ve seen more evidence for the existence of the Teletubbies than I have for this mythical moderate muslim majority. I’m far from saying it’s not there I’m just saying we never hear it, we never see it, we have liitle or no evidence for it. This is because the muslim communities are not doing enough to sort out their own mess. Blair is right on that and I support him on that.
“Dr Bari said: "Blaming a community, especially those who have been working for the last five years to bringing sanity in the community, bringing peace and harmony in the community.
"This blaming is not helpful to us."”
Bringing sanity to the community? Is the Muslim Council of Great Britain declaring that Muslim communities are insane?
“On Tuesday, the prime minister said: "In the end, government itself cannot go and root out the extremism in these communities. I am probably not the person to go into the Muslim community... It's better that we mobilise the Islamic community itself to do this." “
He’s bang on the money here… and that doesn’t happen often. Moderate muslims out there, make yourselves heard. Be louder than the militants! Stop blaming western society for the fact that your fanatics hate it and if you find these fanatics among you… turn them in.
Now I am going back to the Opposition.
Today however I make an exception because Peter Riddell, in the opinion of your erstwhile good Guttersnipe here, has just frankly got the wrong end of the stick and then proceeds to get more wrong as the column goes on.
“JOHN PRESCOTT is now politically irrelevant. Only he and a few friends do not seem to realise this. It is merely a question of how long he takes to accept that his reputation is tarnished beyond recovery.”
Well I would agree with politically irrelevant but the use of the word ‘now’ strikes me. This would imply that he was politically relevant at some time in the past. He wasn’t. He was a useless fat twat then and still remains so today. The only crumb of political use he has had is that he appears to be good at embarrassing the Labour Party far more than Blair does.
“Every new incident or allegation further erodes his position.”
Nope… every new incident or allegation leaves him in exactly the same place, as a trade-union thug who we finance to the tune of £2m and get nothing in return. If we really want to have talentless, brain-dead feckwits in our newspapers all the time we have the Big Brother Housemates, and we don’t have to pay them.
“This has been fuelled by the new world of political blogging, seeking to break stories that might not be covered in the mainstream media.”
Actually seeking to publish stories that the BBC sweep under the carpet, but I’ll let you off on that one.
“The latest stories about Mr Prescott’s stay at the US ranch of Philip Anschutz, who wants to run Britain’s first supercasino, represent a lack of judgment rather than outright scandal. I do not believe that Mr Prescott behaved corruptly, he does not have a role in decisions about who runs casinos.”
Here, Peter, you have misunderstood things. I believe the Prescott behaved corruptly. If he was on official business what was it? I believe he went over there to be wined and dined by an American billionaire at taxpayers’ expense. Anschutz needs something from the government (ie. Permission to have a casino) therefore it is Anschutz’s responsibility to come over to London and negotiate it. It’s not the government’s job to go out to America and ponce about in champagne receptions. Unless:
a) It was done to oil the wheels of the deal ergo Prescott acted corruptly
b) It was nothing more than a taxpayer funded holiday in the US ergo Prescott acted corruptly
From Day One Prescott has taken advantage of every ministerial perk that he can get his grubby hands on, including his diary secretary, taking the trappings of government without doing the governing and that in my book is abuse of position and therefore corruption.
“At present, some senior ministers are displaying an arrogance and ethical casualness, as Sir Alistair Graham, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has said, much to the irritation of many in Whitehall. It is no good just believing your behaviour is above board. That needs to be demonstrated. Moreover, the arrangements for investigating allegations against ministers are still inadequate because it remains for the Prime Minister to decide whether to order an inquiry. “
Damn right there’s arrogance. The NuLabour ship is sinking so they’re all helping themselves to the silver now by sticking their noses in the trough and ploughing every little luxury they can.
“For Mr Prescott, the turning point was two months ago when he had to admit to an affair with Tracey Temple, his diary secretary. That left him looking ridiculous but, initially, he failed to recognise the extent of the damage. “
Oh he recognised the damage alright. He just didn’t care. Remember it’s all about what they can get now.
“Mr Prescott is a proud and prickly man, sensitive to slights and being patronised. He has played an important political role in the Labour Party, being a crucial ally to both John Smith and Tony Blair. That is why Mr Blair is publicly supportive now. “
No… Prescott is an embarrassing leftie thug who would have been fired from any other job if he had behaved the way he has done in office, imagine for a moment he was still the bartender on a cruise ship. How long would he last if he:
- Punched a customer
- Sexually assaulted and harassed the female members of staff
- Had sex on the Captain’s Desk
- Just took Thursday afternoon off work for a croquet game
The Perk-grabbing fat bastard makes me sick. Blair is supportive of him now because they come as a package and we all know full well that if Prescott goes he’ll take Blair with him.
"His dragon-slaying heroics have kept his legend alive through the centuries.
But the Church of England is considering rejecting England's patron saint St George on the grounds that his image is too warlike and may offend Muslims.
Forgive me a moment….
Thanks to DrinkingFromHome for highlighting this.
Right… have a think about this.
The Parliamentary Labour Party has absolutely no method of voting no-confidence in its leaders.
If this is the case then Prescott’ in place as long as he wants to be in place unless Blair actually gets rid of him. To fire the DPM would be to fire the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and this is a right the PLP don’t have.
It is Guttersnipe’s belief that Prescott has some sort of hold on Blair that prevents this from happening.
Blair and the Labour Party bang on about how the Tories can’t decide on a leader but that’s chiefly because the Conservative Party has that right. If enough Tory MPs hand in a petition to Michael Spicer of the 1922 Committee then a leadership contest can be triggered.
We saw this happen with the crash of Iain Duncan Smith. Tory opponents always like to paint this sort of thing as ‘evil disloyal back-stabbing Tories’ but think about it. In the Tory party the sniping and counter-briefing that the Labour Party is currently suffering can be stopped in its tracks.
I recall William Hague mentioning on TV during the takedown of IDS that this was the case.
If so… we’re stuck with Prescott until either he or Blair decide that it’s time to go and I don’t see Prescott shifting any time soon do you?
"I'm not quitting, says Prescott
John Prescott says he will not quit as deputy prime minister despite pressure over his meetings with the man hoping to turn the Dome into a super-casino.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I will get on with doing my job and I'm not leaving it."
Well surprise surprise (as Cilla would say).
He apologised for his affair with a secretary but refused to say whether he had had other affairs.
Er… shall we take that as a yes then?
"There was no truth in much of the stories written about him in newspapers and internet blogs, he said. "I know there is a media storm against me - they don't like me and to be honest, I don't like them," he said."
Look Fatso… get this through your fecking socialist skull will you? With the exception of the Guardian, and probably the Socialist
The fact that you are still in office, still screwing your civil servants, still jetting off to discuss the Dome is selling papers faster than a cure for cancer could be sold at the same price.
The media’s only interest in your resignation is going to be if it harms their readership by supporting you. The public hate you so the media are market-bound to follow suit.
"Mr Prescott says he was not involved in Dome-sale talks with Philip Anschutz. "
Bollocks, just plain bollocks! Philip Anschutz is a billionaire businessman. Guttersnipe is self-employed and can’t even have his parents over without talking shop, do we really think that the subject won’t crop up?
Why else would a billionaire entrepreneur invite Prescott over to stay? Do we even remotely think he phoned up and said: “John, why not bring over a few civil servants and we’ll have a chat about slavery abolition… possibly the odd game of croquet”?
You’re havin’ a larf….
Prescott insists on blaming the media, the bloggers, the mystery conspiracy and the Tories for the mess his career is in and the fact he is a political laughing stock. The fact is Two Shags neither the media, the bloggers or the Tories:
- called Tracey Temple into their office and said “How’s this for a right honourable member”
- went on a free American junket at taxpayer’s expense
- Sat spending their office time playing croquet
That nice Mr. Dale commented:
“"Prescott's friends would be well advised to desist in their efforts to defame various bloggers including myself. Blogs have played a major role in exposing Prescott's activities and I make no apology for that. There are no dirty tricks. No one is pulling our strings. Prescott's own incompetence and sleaziness has ruined his reputation with little help from me. If there are further revelations to emerge, no threat from Prescott or his lackeys will stop the truth coming out."
Wise words I’m sure you will agree. Iain Dale is a well educated, thought provoking writer of the highest standard. John Prescott is a bullying sexual predator who has been the author of his own downfall.
If you really want a blogger conspiracy I’m sure that we bloggers will be happy to oblige. Ladies and Gentlemen, find dirt and publish it.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
"The pips will be squeaking in the Commons today as Dawn Primarolo, the paymaster general, takes on the rich over the trusts designed to avoid inheritance tax. This is only one more tax loophole closed, as she and the chancellor stalk the avoiders, the state forever destined to plod several steps behind the sharpest tax lawyers. "
She’s kicked off with the standard leftie statist view that anyone seeking to mitigate their tax must be a dirty tax avoider who should be sharing a cell with Lester Piggott and Al Capone. This is bollocks. Just for once Polly could you possibly think like the rest of us…
People aren’t avoiding paying tax on their estates because they have already spent their entire lifetime paying tax on their estates. We call it income tax. The tiny amount of disposable income that your one eyed sexual fantasy leaves us with we convert to assets. Why the fuck should we then get taxed on it again Polly? Especially when the only thing we have done differently is to die.
Secondly this isn’t an attack just on the rich, I guarantee you that the rich can afford the tax advisers to get around anything that your perfect pict puts in their way. Maybe if he kept the resultant tax down to a lower level than the accountants’ fees he might win but he’s not going to do that is he?
"But from the shrieks of fury in the Mail, Telegraph and Express, you might think this was indeed revolution from Gordon Robespierre and Dawn Defarge. But it only brings in a modest £15m in year one, and £100m a year in a decade."
No Polly, again I guarantee you it will bring in much less than that in year one and continue to bring in much less than that in a decade. We want to keep our money, especially when we are repeatedly seeing it being pissed up the wall. We will find a way.
"Before plunging into the detail, step back a moment and look at the big picture. What is happening to wealth? First the good news: nearly 70% own their own homes, able to remortgage to give their own children that vital first step up on the property ladder, and many now inherit their own parents' homes in a midlife windfall. "
Let’s really look at the big picture shall we? “First the good news: nearly 70% of people own their own home” NO THEY FECKING DON’T!!!! Your supposed £140,000pa salary might mean you own your fecking ivory tower in Tellytubbyland outright but the rest of us effectively rent our homes for 25 years from a bank. The bank has first charge on our property not us. The bank owns our homes. It’s called a fecking mortgage!
Able to remortgage? So what you’re saying really Polly is something more akin to “70% of people are now in debt up to their eyes and can only get their children on the property ladder by taking the extreme financial risk of doubling that debt simply because house prices are too high for recent graduates to come remotely close to affording the payments” I think that’s a little closer to the mark don’t you?
"The median property value (where half are worth more, and half less) is £157,500. The average in the south-east is £192,000. But no one starts to pay any inheritance tax until the estate tops £285,000 - soon to be £325,000. How many people is that? Just 6% of all estates. "
Let’s start with a simple definitions of these facts, you remember facts Polly? They’re the things you wave to as they completely pass you by.
Property (in your context) = House value
Estate = Everything you fecking own from your house, car, business, shares, savings, life insurance policies, house contents, jewellery, land, rental incomes and so forth down the line.
It soon adds up to more than £285,000. 6% of the population may own (or rent from banks) a house that’s worth more than £285K but that’s not 6% of all estates is it? Ask your tax lawyer… I’m sure you’ve got one.
"What's more, this change to ensure that all trusts worth more than £285,000 should now pay a fairer share of tax will touch nothing like even that 6%, but the far smaller proportion of those rich enough to gift away more than £285,000 to a trust in their lifetime. "
Currently.. anyone with a £140K mortgage has a £140K house and £140K life assurance policy = £280K assets… getting awfully close to that £285K target aren’t we?
"So when George Osborne astonishingly claims that this modest tax change is "a wake-up call to middle England", frankly it takes your breath away. Middle England? It shows just how wildly out of touch the Cameron set can be with what is ordinary. Notting Hill is a stratosphere away. Do they know the median (middle England) salary is just £21,000? "
Oh for fuck’s sake…. Since you like to play with stats and figures so much Polly let me show you a few examples from my previous work in finance and tax planning. Have you worked in finance and tax planning? Have you passed your Financial Planning Certificate? Your AFPC? Your 11+?
Example (not to be taken as a family history of your good Guttersnipe here):
Guttersnipe earns £48,000 pa and Lady Guttersnipe stays at home to mind Baby Gutternsipe. With this they can obtain a 4x income mortgage (risky but banks will do it now that the house prices are so high). With that they can get a £192,000 mortgage. With 10% deposit on a house from savings they can now buy a £213,000 house. The house is held in Guttersnipe’s name only. Guttersnipe’s life is insured to the tune of the mortgage. Guttersnipe has £30k in other assets. He also has a Life Assurance Policy to payout £8K per year until Baby Guttersnipe is 18 (Baby G is now 1) to cover school fees and the like in the event of his death. This is written into trust to Lady Guttersnipe.
But Guttersnipe and Lady Guttersnipe are not married (something I know you approve of Polly) so anything that Lady Guttersnipe inherits from her other half she has to pay tax on. Lady Guttersnipe does not have Life Insurance as there is no Insurable Interest. Insurable Interest is automatic between spouses, but they are not married.
Guttersnipe is killed. Heroically saving the world from left-wing conspiracies.
Lady Guttersnipe has just inherited a £213K house and a £192K life insurance payout, and a total over time of £136,000 (17 x £8K for Baby G) a total of £543,000. Fortunately the trust has meant that the life payout was legally hers already. She hasn’t really inherited it as such and the rest of the estate therefore amounts to £243K, below the tax threshold (the £192 life payout went straight to the bank to pay the mortgage). She’s done rather well.
However if the trust were not an issue in this, as the one-eyed twat would have it. The following could happen:
Guttersnipe is killed. Heroically saving the world from left-wing conspiracies.
Lady Guttersnipe has just inherited a £213K house and a £192K life insurance payout, and a total over time of £136,000 (17 x £8K for Baby G) a total of £543,000. After the £192 goes to the bank the rest of the estate therefore amounts to £379K. She’s done rather well but this is above the threshold.
The first thing that will happen is that the Revenue will get their mits in. It’s called probate.
With an inheritance of £379K they present her with a bill for £37,600. Where is she going to get this money? She has two choices in the short term:
- She sells the house and buys a smaller house at £170,000 and spends the change on her tax bill.
- She sacrifices Baby Guttersnipe’s private education, pays the tax bill and Baby Guttersnipe has to go into state education and the SureStart scheme where in Polly’s own words ‘That may not create a super vocabulary or IQ score, but it can protect them from the worst.’
But never mind eh Pol? I’m sure Gordon can spend that £37K on taking you for a holiday in Sweden since you love the fecking place so much!
"Since then [1999-2000], Gordon Brown has been tracking the cash, recouping many billions. He has obliged tax lawyers to register any clever tax-avoidance scheme being marketed so that new loopholes can be speedily closed."
Tracking the cash so well that £2bn (apparently the amount generated by Inheritance Tax) has been overpaid on tax credits and he doesn’t know how to get it back. Why not sort your fecking payments out and you could do the decent thing and get rid of the Inheritance Tax? Twat!
"But if you, dear Guardian reader, need the occasional reminder of the real difference between Labour and Tories, observe the full might of the Tory world and its press on the rampage to protect the very rich."
Er…. The real difference between the Tories and Labour on this is that the last time Labour got its hands on Inheritance Tax it was 83% under Callaghan. It was reduced to 40% under Thatcher.
"Brown didn't mention the tax on trusts in his budget speech, let alone explain why it is right and fair. "
Because it is not right and it is not fair… tax has been paid in huge amounts on these estates already. You are taxed twice for having the temerity to die. How is that right? How is that fair?
You say in your header that Cameron has no idea what middle England earns… well you earn more than he does supposedly do you know?