School report for citizenship – could do better.

What a nice break that was (although adding another child to my family could/should hardly be considered a break).

I’ve worked nearly every day I can since the age of 16. I worked so I could put myself through college; I worked so I could put myself through university; I worked so I could experience all the trappings of ‘Old London Town’, recently I have worked to keep a roof over my family’s head. Cards on the table time….I’m a teacher, a nurse, a diplomat…I’m a public servant. I, like most public servants, pay taxes. I also pay student loan repayments and pension contributions. I don’t have a credit card or an overdraft, in fact, apart from my student loan I’m totally debt free. I have never been arrested…I am a public servant. However, I am the only bread winner in my beautiful family of four. By 2013 I will earn just above the cut off limit for child benefit. Since May I have seen my pay frozen for the next two years, my children’s child benefit taken away and now I face the prospect of a de-facto pay cut if the findings from the Hutton report are implemented. I am a public servant.

I am told that in order to be a good citizen it takes more than just, raising a family, paying taxes, abiding by the law and teaching the leaders of tomorrow. I’m told that I have to do more…my country needs me. I, like most citizens of this country, work extremely hard. Since September I have worked an average of 55 hours a week (this includes Sunday)…I am most definitely not on my own and there so many more people that work harder and longer, and for less. I am a public servant. I guess my point is, what more can I do?

I didn’t go into teaching for the holidays or the generous pension at retirement; I went into teaching because I wanted to offer children a better standard of education than I received…I wanted to make a small difference to the country in which I grew up in. I don’t feel that I should be bribed into doing it and I don’t feel that I should be bullied into leaving. I am a public servant.

We were told today by Emma Boon, campaign manager at the TaxPayers’ Alliance: ‘It is not right for taxpayers to be subsidising million-pound retirement benefits for the public sector elite while seeing the value of their own pensions plummet’. I look forward to announcing to my colleagues tomorrow morning that we no longer pay tax, not only that, we also each get a million-pound on retirement. Now I’m not saying that being the campaign manager for the TaxPayer’s Alliance isn’t a proper job but Ms Booth is clearly not good in her current role as she has failed to understand, recognise that public servants also pay tax.

I’m sure that when the coalition have finished demonising the unemployed, public servants, the north, local councils, the police, the NHS, Europe, immigrants then I’m sure they will get around to the tax evaders and the bonkers bank bonuses. The coalition are some what correct in their approach to citizens that choose not to seek work or undertake work if they believe it beneath them. However, the proportion of those that fiddle the benefits system doesn’t come close to the proportion of those that fiddle the tax system. The top 10% of this country own 90% of it’s wealth, this leaves 10% of wealth to 90% of the country.

So to sum up, I need to work longer for less money, I have no right to financial assistance through the taxes that I pay and I have to work for free during the only time that I get to spend with my family. I am a public servant…is this fair?

Top Trumps – Labour Leadership 2010

September 1st 2010 is a significant date in the diary for many reasons. For most schools in Britain it heralds the start of the new academic year. It marks the 25th anniversary of the wreckage of the Titanic being discovered. Uzbekistanis celebrate the 19th year of independence from the former Soviet Union. For Ed, Ed, Dave, Andy and Diane the 1st of September takes on a special significance as it marks the day in which the Labour leadership ballot begins to drop. Throughout the month, Labour party members will be voting in their thousands until the 25th when the results are announced.

Regular readers of the blog will know that this isn’t the first time I’ve strayed from the subject of the coalition. As I’ve stated before you can’t separate the coalition from the Labour leadership election because the winner will have a direct impact on the success or failure of the Con-Dems. If the correct candidate is elected, then they will have the challenge of trying to form a credible opposition.

When I was growing up, my friends and I used to argue about who would win in a fight…who would win between Optimus Prime & Megatron; Dalglish & Kendall; Stallone & Schwarzenegger; Thatcher & Kinnock (ok I made that last one up). Optimus was a truck but Megatron was a plane; Kendall had Sharp but Dalglish had Rush; Stallone had Rocky but Schwarzenegger had The Terminator; Kinnock had Hattersly but Thatcher had Tebbit. We loved nothing more than debating the minute details of each opponent. Sometimes we would fall onto the statistical debating cards, Top Trumps, to assist us.

Well, in a throwback to those salad days, my friends and I were in the pub the other day sharing stories of our complicated lives. During one of our discussions, two of my more troubled friends started to debate the leadership election. As the debate grew to include all of the table, it became clear that we all seemed to share different views of the candidates.  One area where we were all in agreement was on the importance this election has on the country. We just couldn’t agree on how best to judge the candidates…who would win? David has more support from MPs but his brother has the overwhelming support of the Unions; Diane is a woman, the rest all look the same; Well, just for fun, I’ve made these cards to help me choose and I hope they help you decide…the Cameron card is also included in the pack. (Cards not to be used for serious debate…watch out for the ‘special’ election reform referendum pack soon).

Ed 'I'm not David' Miliband

Ed 'I almost lost my seat' Balls

Diane 'I'm a woman' Abbott

Andy 'I'm northern' Burnham

David 'I'm not Tony but by god I want to be' Cameron

David 'I'm not Tony or Gordon' Miliband

A new era of suffrage? Women know your limits!

Are we entering a new era of suffrage under the Con-Dems? The evidence seems to point to a government with pre Pankhurst attitudes to women’s rights. The disproportionate cuts in the budget, the shelving of ‘Go-Orders’ and the proposed ending of council tenancy for life have hit women very hard.

Did we expect anything else from a male dominated cabinet? This is a ‘back to basics’ campaign through the back door…

Harry Enfield created the Tory poster boys ‘Tim Nice But Dim’ & ‘Loads-a-money’, he also created this, now rather accurate, depiction of the modern Tory attitude to women…enjoy.

The count-out begins

Over the past week two heavyweights of British politics faced off against each other, again, and again, and again. Gove threw the first punch, kick starting a match off  that is sure to continue throughout the duration of this parliament.

Ladies and gentlemen, this week’s main event. In the blue (and slightly yellow) corner, the elected representative from Surrey Heath; MP since 2005; the Secretary of State for Education…Michael ‘The Cleaner’ Gove! In the red corner, the elected representative from Morley and Outwood (Just); MP since 2005…Ed ‘Spender’ Balls; brought to you by the people of Great Britain, in association with the Lib Dems…Lets get ready to crumble!!!!!

Round One – Last Monday saw Gove land the first knock down after he announced that he was axing the BSF programme. Although it wasn’t a knock down that was entirely unexpected by Balls and his team, he was still sent reeling from the loss of his Education legacy. Gove wins the fist round; Gove 10 – 8 Balls

Round Two – However, Balls was soon up off the canvas as he started throwing some counter attacking punches on Newsnight that very evening. Gove almost went down as Balls came in with a crunching uppercut. An uppercut that was delivered not from his own hands but that of the Permanent Secretary for Education. That afternoon, Balls had received an apology from the secretary over claims that Gove had made during the announcement in the House that afternoon. Bewildered by this assault, Gove was left blinking, his eyes stinging from the pain that surged through his body from this winding body blow. However, the wiley Scotsman wasn’t finished, he countered with the charge that Balls had made a large mess and he was cleaning it up. These two seemed to throw counter punch after counter punch at each other until Paxman, the ever vigilant referee, broke them apart as the bell sounded. Both fighters landed some strong blows in that round so honours even; Gove 10-10 Balls

Round Three – After a motivating pep talk from his corner, Balls came out swinging at the sound of the bell. It turned out that he didn’t need to. In a strange twist, Gove had spent the interval punching himself in the head with the assistance of his own corner. Gove now lay withering on the canvas…Balls, arms aloft, danced around the media outlets claiming victory. Gove was all but out, the countout was ringing in his ears…members of his own corner were baying for his blood…Gove, however, was saved by the bell. Balls storms round three; Gove 8 – 10 Balls

Round Four – Firing on all cylinders now, Balls jumps from his stool as the bell sounds, pumped up, scenting blood. He charges into the ring and demands an apology, which Gove feels like a right cross slamming into his jaw. For a full 30mins Gove stands, Rockyesque, as punches are thrown and land like hammer blows to his coalitions…spurned on by the few remaining voices of support from his blue corner, the voices from the red corner fail to land the killer haymaker. Once again Gove survives and staggers back to his corner. Balls wins the fourth round; Gove 8 – 10 Balls

Round Five Nothing round really. Balls and his red corner, dance around, slightly tired from their unrelenting attacks of the previous rounds. Gove hides in the corner occasionally sticking his neck out to apologise once again. Both opponents feeling the pace; Gove 10 – 10 Balls

Round Six – Has Gove been using the risky Rope-a-Dope strategy? Well just when it looks like he could be down and out, punched out, ready to throw the towel in, he delves deep and finds something. He looks into the stands as he sits, waiting on his bench, he sees a mystical figure, he cries out through bloodied lips CAMERON!! What was said could only be conjecture, it seemed to do the trick, Gove came out of his corner, cocked locked and ready to rock! Gove lived up to his name to land a few killer blows of his own. Every charge that was thrown at him he ducked with ‘it’s all their fault’. With every tired punch he countered with ‘it’s all your mess’. When it came to blocking those haymaker punches he simply held his guard up high to his face and proclaimed ‘you left us with no choice’. An Ali like recovery; Gove 10 – 9 Balls (Gove 57 – 58 Balls)

The fight will continue but as it stands Balls is ahead by one point. Who are the real winners of all this political sparring? Sadly I don’t think it’s parents, teachers, building contractors and most importantly children. Some will argue that the BSF programme was highly bureaucratic and riddled with over spends. However, most will argue that the end justifies the means. Value for money shouldn’t come in to it.

The BSF programme leaked money not because it was a bad idea, it leaked money because it was badly managed. If a school starts to fail because it’s badly managed, you get rid of the Head teacher and you employ someone who can get the school back on track. You don’t simply close the school and say everything about it was failing. What better way to prove that the previous government weren’t up to the job?

We all know that Gove has cancelled BSF for ideological and political reasons. The money that he will save will go towards funding his ‘Free School’ project. It mustn’t come as a surprise that on the list of cancelled projects, academies don’t feel the same level of disappointment as state controlled secondary schools. Once Gove has managed to divert all funding to his pet projects, and as a consequence state controlled schools fall even further behind, he can sit back in his blue corner and pontificate about how successful his ideas were.

Sadly I feel that cancelling the BSF programme was the real and hardest felt haymaker thrown this week. It knocked state education to the canvas, the countdown began, and unless we help it back to its feet, the fight could now nearly be over.

Every Little Helps, Spock would not approve.

Matthew Elliott the chief executive of The TaxPayers’ Alliance, earlier this week, issued this statement;

‘These cuts are a really good start, and a vindication of all the work we have done over the last six years to make the case for cutting spending. Taxpayers have suffered the pain of a recession and rising taxes, and they will welcome the news that a government is finally making the public sector share the burden.’

A point so devoid of logic that Spock himself would be left opened mouthed and some what lost for words. The point that Matthew Elliott seems to be making doesn’t pay any consideration to the fact that public sector workers, do, in fact, also pay tax…all be it less tax than private sector workers as generally if you work in the public sector then you get paid less.

You can’t just rely on the private sector stimulating the economy as they are more interested in stimulating their profit margins. The argument that the Con-Dems seem to be using hasn’t worked already…Labour tried it with the banks and it failed. We injected large sums of money into them, in the hope that they would lend much needed money to business. What happened instead? They either hoarded it or spent it out in bonuses. A prime example of the private sector doing what is best for themselves and not that of the country. Do they really think that we are stupid enough to believe that Tesco will run their business at a loss just to stimulate the economy? Tesco would close down the less profitable shops quicker than you could say ‘Every Little Helps’.

So going back to Matthew Elliott’s point…by the inevitable job losses that these cuts will produce the government has now reduced the amount of money they will be able to inject into the commercial/private sector and they have reduced the amount of tax they will be able to collect in general. They can’t collect income tax on people who now don’t have an income…and people who don’t have an income, generally don’t have any money to spend in Tesco or Marks and Sparks.

It’s bloody hard to ‘Live long and Prosper’ when you can’t afford to feed yourself or your family Mr Elliott!

Chuckle more than Abel?

The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you furious? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

Wise words and ones that should be heeded by messers Ed and David Miliband if they are to revitalise a disconsolate Labour Party. A party still reeling from an election defeat that has left many believing that the party has no immediate future. Now I know that this topic doesn’t relate directly to Camegg but the winner of this brotherly battle will have a direct impact on the Con-Dem coalition. The Conservatives spent years in the political wilderness because they didn’t or couldn’t form a creditable opposition. If Labour get it right now then they could be returned to power in less than 5 years.

Let’s examine a little further the future of this legitimate brotherhood that seeks to rip a hole into the illegitimate bond between Cameron & Clegg. There is evidence to suggest, throughout history, that two brothers working together leaves one less well placed than the other, especially when they both fight for superiority, so how should Ed and Dave proceed? Furthermore, does age count? Will Dave triumph over Ed simply because he is the elder brother? Lets look at some of the evidence;

Cain & Abel – History’s biggest and oldest brotherly fall out. Cain being the first murderer in history, killing his brother when feeling rejected by God and jealous of his brother. Cain was then forced to wander the earth as a punishment. Cain was the elder brother, so 1-0 to Cain. However, you could argue that Abel won as he was the winner in God’s eyes, so maybe it should be 1-0 to Abel…so lets call it a draw.  Elder 1-1 Younger

Isaac & Ishmael – Ishmael being the first son of Abraham, was banished along with his mother Hagar, when his younger brother Isaac made an appearance on the scene.  As we know both Isaac and Ishmael are credited to be the founders of the worlds two oldest religions, Judaism and Islam. Both religions still carry a grudge and refuse to talk to each other…Broigus to an extreme! Isaac was the younger brother so 1-0 to him. Elder 1 – 2 Younger

Gary and Phil Neville – Both started out playing for the biggest football team in the world with varying degrees of success. Gary still plays for Man Utd but poor Phil was farmed out to a lesser club after several inconsistent years. Who knows if there is any animosity around the Christmas dinner table? Gary has continued to win league medals whereas Phil has won nothing since leaving Utd therefore an emphatic win for Gary 1-0. Elder 2 -2 Younger

Rudolf and Adolf Dassler – Both brothers started making sports shoes in their mothers laundry room during the 1920s. Thought to have both fallen out with each other during an allied bomb attack during  1943. Rudolf called the Allied warplanes ‘dirty bastards’ and Adi thought he was talking about him…typical of any brotherly relationship. Then in 1948 they split their business, Adi set up Adidas and Rudi set up Ruda (later changed to Puma). Adidas is by far the more successful brand so Adi wins this one for the younger brothers. Elder 2 – 3 Younger

Noel and Liam Gallagher – founding members of legendary Indi band Oasis. Noel left the band recently because he found the constant arguing with Liam too much. Liam still believes that he is the more talented brother…Noel still believes that he is. Difficult this one really,  Noel the superior songwriter is undoubtedly the most talented out of the pairing, but Noel’s songs are nothing without the chutzpah and vocal stylings of Liam. Draw. Elder 3 -4 Younger

So the younger brother just wins but what can Ed and Dave learn from these historical relationships? Well it’s probably not a good idea, no matter how jealous you get, that you murder your brother…thats the first and most obvious thing to bear in mind. Both David and Ed have said the right things about blood being thicker than water and that first and foremost they are brothers before politicians…but can that last? One thing that these case studies have shown us is that  ambition seems to win out in the end.

There is always an exception and this is no different. A case where both brothers work together in partnership, working together for the common good…’The Chuckle Brothers’. Both Barry and Paul work very well together, although you would have to admit that Barry is the lesser of the two brothers, always seeming to come off worse.

What we can say is that the commonality between all sets of brothers is that neither would have been as successful or notorious without the other. Without Cain there wouldn’t have been an Abel, without Ishmael there would have been no Isaac, no Barry without Paul.  The brotherly rivalry spurred each of them on to achieve more than arguably they could have done alone.

So I suppose the best advice that both Ed and Dave could take would simply be to look no further than their party cards. They should simply turn them over and read, ‘By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we do alone.’

Lets hope that both Ed and Dave look to this Labour core value and they simply don’t play ‘To me, to you’ with the party for too long.

Lasting moment of change?

So it’s all change at the top…yesterday saw the start of something special, something very special. That’s right yesterday saw the start of Junior Apprentice…over the next few weeks we get to see ‘Lord’ Alan beat the shit out of little, annoying teenagers, most probably because they are little, annoying teenagers. Ironic really that as we see the birth of a new government, a government rooted in the Thatcherite policies of old, that we also see on our screens the birth of the next generation of ‘Loads-A-Monies’.

So we ask the question, has this new Con-Dem government really brought the change in politics that they proclaim so loudly? Nick Clegg has spent the past 4 weeks trying to convince everyone, which he has done to some degree, that he is the 2nd coming (the first of course is his new friend Dave Cameron). He has told us repeatedly that he wants to change the way that Westminster works, that “the only choice you have is between the two old parties who’ve been taking it in turns to run things for years.”, hitting us with his campaign mantra of ‘Change that works for you, building a fairer Britain’. We all know where ‘Dave’ stands on change, its change this, change that, vote for change. Well how well do Con-Dem stand up to this idea of change? Lets look at some figures (Courtesy of Newsnight);

  • 65% of the the new cabinet went to either Oxford or Cambridge (15% of Tony Blair’s first cabinet were Oxbridge)
  • 61% of the new cabinet were educated at private schools
  • 4 members of the cabinet are women (would we even have Theresa May in the cabinet if Chris Grayling, ironically, hadn’t come out as a raving homophobe (the word ‘change’ once again rings loudly in the ears. Their were 8 women in Blair’s & 5 in Brown’s first cabinet)
  • 1 cabinet member is from an ethnic minority (she’s also a woman)
  • There are no ethnic minority MPs within the Parliamentary Lib Dem party.

Surely if you want to sell a different type of politics then you need a different type of face? What we see is that the change that they offered was a change from a progressive, representative cabinet to a change back to a government that now once again looks very white, very male, very upper middle class and very elitist. At least the Tory party from the 70’s and 80’s had a woman that was there simply not to make up the numbers.

Where does that leave them on the ‘change’ front? Well after 3 years of rebranding from ‘Dave’ and all the trumpeted ‘change’ nonsense from ‘Nick’ we see very little change in the look of the government. How about the ‘change’ to their policies? Lets take the ‘Big Society’ that Dave offered us.

When Cameron stated in his first speech as PM that he wanted to ‘change’ Britain from ‘One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities’, he was selling his vision of change to the country. 23 years earlier Maggie stated that ‘People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations’. The words may have changed but the sentiment hasn’t – its worth noting that Maggie also said in the same speech that ‘there was no such thing as society’ – we all know what happened next – society itself crumbled…we are still suffering the hang-over from that 80’s party.

So in the same week that the budding ‘Loads-a-monies’ of the early 21st century launch their quest for loads of money, the old ‘Loads-of-monies’ of the late 20th century launch their quest for change…the only problem is, they haven’t!

The government of change. Source BBC