chairman bill wrote:SD seemed to spring to the defence of policy concerning the NHS, even though that has now been deemed an error by the LibDems. I've heard nothing about him being wrong, no doubt because he never is, which means he must still support that policy. So on that issue at least, he's at odds with the LibDems. As we get ever closer to May, and the LibDems back-pedal on more and more policies they've been involved in over the last four years, I can see him getting further & further away from the party. Maybe he'll join the Tories; he does seem in tune with them on so many things.

Look who's talking! The member of the Labservative Party, who stuck with them while they extraordinarily rendered people left, right and centre while waging illegal war in the Middle East.

You'll note I'm ignoring your trolling lies about Lib Dem NHS policy, by the way.

Strontium Dog wrote:

DaveD wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:Found myself in Birkenhead the other morning, which is sometimes unavoidable. There were two women in the newsagents (both in their pyjamas, natch) buying scratchcards and junk food.

Doubtless you can furnish us with evidence that these two women received food from a foodbank, which would be the only, albeit weak, reason for burdoning us with this judgemental anecdote.

All the fault of the bloody Tories, no doubt.

As you are, once again, rushing to the defence of the Tories, what plans do you have to distance yourself from them as we get nearer to the General Election next May?

I've never once rushed to the defence of the Tories, therefore it's impossible for me to do so again.

What I'm doing is criticising the nonsense other people come out with.

Actually, you seemed to be criticising two anonymous women from Birkenhead for buying scratchcards in their PJs - you've said nothing on the recent report on hunger and food poverty, nor challenged any specific points raised about that (other than to imply that criticism of the government isn't justified, because of... reasons).

Strontium Dog wrote:

chairman bill wrote:SD seemed to spring to the defence of policy concerning the NHS, even though that has now been deemed an error by the LibDems. I've heard nothing about him being wrong, no doubt because he never is, which means he must still support that policy. So on that issue at least, he's at odds with the LibDems. As we get ever closer to May, and the LibDems back-pedal on more and more policies they've been involved in over the last four years, I can see him getting further & further away from the party. Maybe he'll join the Tories; he does seem in tune with them on so many things.

Look who's talking! The member of the Labservative Party, who stuck with them while they extraordinarily rendered people left, right and centre while waging illegal war in the Middle East.

You'll note I'm ignoring your trolling lies about Lib Dem NHS policy, by the way.

I'll leave trolling lies to you - you just do it better than anyone else.

As for the rest, I've always been prepared to criticise Labour policies & agitate & work for change within the party. I see no reason why you shouldn't do the same, but equally, with LibDem policy now seeming to move away from what it has supported whilst in government, policies that you've maintained are the right policies (and you're never wrong, so they must still be the right policies), you might consider, as I've done with Labour, changing your political allegiance to another party. In my case, the Greens, in yours, the Tories.

THWOTH wrote:Actually, you seemed to be criticising two anonymous women from Birkenhead for buying scratchcards in their PJs - you've said nothing on the recent report on hunger and food poverty, nor challenged any specific points raised about that (other than to imply that criticism of the government isn't justified, because of... reasons).

What's to say about the report? It just confirms everything we already knew: that people visit food banks mostly because of the uselessness of bureaucracy in delivering benefits. That poses a bigger problem for those who are inclined to expand and defend bureaucracy than those who want to dismantle it.

chairman bill wrote:I'll leave trolling lies to you - you just do it better than anyone else.

As for the rest, I've always been prepared to criticise Labour policies & agitate & work for change within the party. I see no reason why you shouldn't do the same, but equally, with LibDem policy now seeming to move away from what it has supported whilst in government, policies that you've maintained are the right policies (and you're never wrong, so they must still be the right policies), you might consider, as I've done with Labour, changing your political allegiance to another party. In my case, the Greens, in yours, the Tories.

You'd fit in well with the Greens, their unrealistic and illiberal rabble-rousing nimbyism seems to strike a chord with certain lefty types.

Obviously I won't be joining the Tories, as I am the complete opposite of a conservative.

Join the Liberal Party then.

Strontium Dog wrote:You'd fit in well with the Greens, their unrealistic and illiberal rabble-rousing nimbyism seems to strike a chord with certain lefty types.

You're not actually familiar with their policies are you?
Their position on immigration is way more realistic than that of the Lib Dems.

I'm familiar with some of their policies, I'm much more familiar with the people themselves.

Strontium Dog wrote:You'd fit in well with the Greens, their unrealistic and illiberal rabble-rousing nimbyism seems to strike a chord with certain lefty types.

Obviously I won't be joining the Tories, as I am the complete opposite of a conservative.

You'll no doubt be able to point to evidence of my liking illiberal policies. Won't you? And my 'rabble-rousing nimbyism' too, no doubt. Fire away.

Could you also provide evidence of your being the opposite of a Conservative (note the capital C)?

Strontium Dog wrote:I'm familiar with some of their policies...

... and others you choose to make up, like your belief in their 'one child policy' which you consistently fail to substantiate.

I imagine you are quite familiar with some of their people though, since a large amount of them used to be associated with the yellow tories way back when they were a legitimate and viable political party.

Strontium Dog wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Actually, you seemed to be criticising two anonymous women from Birkenhead for buying scratchcards in their PJs - you've said nothing on the recent report on hunger and food poverty, nor challenged any specific points raised about that (other than to imply that criticism of the government isn't justified, because of... reasons).

What's to say about the report? It just confirms everything we already knew: that people visit food banks mostly because of the uselessness of bureaucracy in delivering benefits. That poses a bigger problem for those who are inclined to expand and defend bureaucracy than those who want to dismantle it.

I don't think the size of a bureaucracy is a problem in itself, as long as it is competently administrated and its inherent structure is up to the job.

For example, among it's recommendations the recent all-party report on hunger and food poverty calls for an explicit focus on the food needs of citizens to be co-ordinated between government departments, a state-implemented expansion of foodbanks to meet immediate and growing food needs, and an integrated national distribution network to ensure that food is where it is needed most.

I accept that some might argue that this would be an unhelpful, and perhaps counter-productive, expansion of a bureaucracy on the presumption that the size and complexity of a bureaucracy has a direct correlation to its effectiveness - so that small is always better than big. Nonetheless, the all-party inquiry is concerned with the situation as it stands and as it is likely to develop, and so feels such measures are a practical way to address the consequences of certain economic realities and to meet the food needs of a growing number of hungry citizens.

Surely, this is the point: regardless of anyone's thoughts and opinions about the ideal size of a bureaucracy doesn't any and every government have an explicit obligation to ensure it's citizens food needs? The UN think so, and the UK government is bound under the terms of a specific treaty to that effect. However, this is just not happening, and so speaks of a rather serious administrative failure.

I'd agree that the implementation of certain benefit reforms has not helped in this matter, but again that is not simply down to the "uselessness of bureaucracy" even if some are waiting too long for a decision. It is also a direct reflection of changes to the conditions for qualifying for benefits and the triggers for withholding and removing payments - which in turn are a direct consequence of the reforms this government have undertaken through law and ministerial instrument. Their rather patchy management of the economy has not helped either.

However, the general thrust of the all-party inquiry, along with recent reports from Oxfam, the CofE, the Trusell Trust, the Royal College of Physicians, the BMJ, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Action on Child Poverty, The William A Cadbury Charitable Trust, and others, is that pressing underlying social issues need to be addressed if this problem is not to deepen - as the social consequence of widespread hunger impacts on the whole of society and not just on the hungry.

Armed with a surfeit of considered advice, much of which is in broad agreement, the government has seemingly ploughed along regardless. Consequently the social vision of this government has quite rightly come in for some serious scrutiny, and has been found to be failing a growing proportion of the population. Right-leaning politicians and commentators may be totally earnest in their inclinations to criticise and stigmatise the food poor, the fuel poor, and the economically impoverished for the situation they find themselves in, and ministers may even feel totally justified in issuing threats to revoke the charitable status of organisations whose aims appear to be at odds with their ideology, but this simply ignores the facts as they stand while the consequences of deepening impoverishment, particularly when a wealthy minority are seen to be disproportionately benefiting from government policy, are ultimately having a deleterious effect on everyone in society.

That was a fun-packed PMQs yesterday

I linked to it in the yellow tory watch thread. As pathetic as we expect clegg to be, he still manages to exceed expectations

Further to my posts up-thread referring to the UK government's derogation of it's international commitments...

UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights wrote:
Article 11

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:
   
   1. To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;
      
   2. Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInt ... CESCR.aspx

Tories accused of ‘trying to buy election’ with 23% hike to campaign spending
Huge increase quietly slipped through despite Electoral Commission objections over ‘undue influence’

David Cameron has been accused of an unjustifiable bid to “buy the general election” as it emerged that ministers have quietly slipped through an unprecedented hike in the amount that parties can spend during the campaign.

Before this week’s official start to the runup to the 2015 general election, the Observer can reveal that the Conservatives have ignored Electoral Commission recommendations and secured a 23% increase in spending. With the Tories having amassed a £78m war chest over the past four years, they can now funnel huge amounts of cash into key seats.

The change to the law on candidates’ election spending, passed without parliamentary debate, was made despite a direct warning by the commission against such “excessive spending to prevent the perception of undue influence over the outcome of the election”...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-spending

Passed without debate? The torydems don't like democracy much, do they.

Fuck. Some of the shit they pull makes me seriously worry about the future.

It's almost as if some people think their upbringing, background or ideology gives them a de facto right to rule, so fixing the game to ensure that they do probably seems quite reasonable to them.

As much as it is scummy to do this I doubt if another party gets elected that they will cut the limit.

I often think it would be best if everyone got the same amount of money to advertise themselves. That you couldn't use or get donations to try and spread the word more than another person. You all get the same money, the same amount of time, the same amount airtime and if you flub it cause you can't express your message that is your fault.

Bastards.
So where were the LibDems? I can't see how this is in their interests. Those trusty heroes keeping the nasty Tories honest and fair seem to have let this slip by without a squeal. Again.

The yellow tories are as bankrupt financially as they are politically and morally, they can't match blue tory spending either. They probably just calculate that all they stand for - their personal self-interest - is best pursued by serving the blue tories at every level with the hope of continuing to exist within the blue tory party like some sort of gut bacteria.

That both tory parties were only too happy to piss millions of taxpayer funding on those mendacious and utterly debunked "how your tax isn't spent" propaganda leaflets a couple of months ago tells us everything about their attitude to clean campaigning.

ED209 wrote:

Tories accused of ‘trying to buy election’ with 23% hike to campaign spending
Huge increase quietly slipped through despite Electoral Commission objections over ‘undue influence’

David Cameron has been accused of an unjustifiable bid to “buy the general election” as it emerged that ministers have quietly slipped through an unprecedented hike in the amount that parties can spend during the campaign.

Before this week’s official start to the runup to the 2015 general election, the Observer can reveal that the Conservatives have ignored Electoral Commission recommendations and secured a 23% increase in spending. With the Tories having amassed a £78m war chest over the past four years, they can now funnel huge amounts of cash into key seats.

The change to the law on candidates’ election spending, passed without parliamentary debate, was made despite a direct warning by the commission against such “excessive spending to prevent the perception of undue influence over the outcome of the election”...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-spending

Passed without debate? The torydems don't like democracy much, do they.

Well that is the paradox in Britain. When Labour were in power they could have changed the voting system once and for all but did they?