What a difference a year makes

A year ago, I was praying for the parliamentary summer recess to give some cover to an obviously flailing Labour leadership, which didn't seem to be able to get the public's attention and make its arguments effectively. Ed Miliband seemed to be a nice guy but lacked the gravitas to be PM (despite my hopes of 9 months before).

Then the hacking scandal (finally) broke into the public conciousness, amd Ed made his historic demand for a full public enquiry (resisted until the last moment by Cameron and Clegg, it should be noted), and since then hasn't really put a foot wrong:

- the May election results were very good for Labour, except for Ken losing to Boris (but by a much tighter margin than expected). And bear in mind, Ken Livingstone was selected before Ed became leader. All in all, it showed that the people were willing to listen to Labour again, a remarkable result 2 years after losing power. It usually takes at least a parliamentary term (the exception being 1970-74, which highlights the parallels between Cameron's government and Heath's).
- Ed has repeatedly rattled Cameron in the Commons, and the new members of the front bench team are beginning to find their feet.
- Labour has helped to cut the reputation of Osborne to shreds, especially over the Budget. The performance of the Economy has tanked, which Labour predicted it would if the Tories cut public spending without a plan for growth.
- Cameron's mask has slipped totally, and he is increasingly seen as being out of touch and/or uncaring. He has done more to re-establish the Tories as the Nasty Party than any number of Labour PPBs could ever have done.
- He has secured his position against the Blairites in the Party (think how the Murdoch affair would have played differently if David had been in charge).

All in all, a good year's work. Much more to be done over the next 3 years, though!

I think it will be the Tories who will be relieved when the recess comes this year.

Government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich

The Mail on Sunday [I refuse to link to this rag] reports that David Cameron wants to strip housing benefit from under 25's. Apart from the utter unfairness of this, there are a few problems with this:

1) Most receipients of HB are in low paid work (so much for "feckless" under 25's, Mr Mail Headline editor).
2) What happens if someone is thrown out of their home by their parents, or has an abusive parent - are they supposed to live on the streets?
3) If someone is in work and loses their job, does Cameron expect them to move back with their parents? With their partner?
4) Talking of partners, if 2 people have a joint claim, one is 24 and the other 26, do they get HB?
5) Surely this is age discrimination under the Equality Act? Denying something from someone because of their age is discrimination.

This seems to be policy thought up by an out of touch rich boy, to keep his right wingers happy. And it is probably only a few days until the Lib Dems cave in and accept this (as well as Gove Levels).

The best way to reduce the HB bill would be to increase the minimum wage, or otherwise encourage employers to pay a living wage, as most people getting HB are in work. Demonising those who receive it as feckless and lazy is plain wrong.

The truth is the government subsidises low wages through the benefits/tax system. Workers would be better off if they got higher wages, and it would help reduce the deficit (by reducing benefits payments and tax credits, and increasing the tax take). But all this government seems to care about is to help their businessmen friends by sqeezing wages and reducing employment rights.

This really is the government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich.

What they don't want you to know

http://occupydesign.org.uk/whose-debt

The debt of UK financial institutions is 6 times UK GDP. Government debt is just under one times GDP. Which do you think is more dangerous, Mr Osborne?

More Tory cronyism

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/contract-awarded-to-octavius-black-an-eton-crony-of-david-cameron-7743511.html

Imagine if Labour had awarded a multi million pound contract to Charles Faulkener? The open cronyism of this government is getting sickening.

Michael Rosen nails the debt problem

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/billions-were-not-allowed-to-talk-about.html?spref=tw

Amazing a children's writer gets it, but politicians/economists don't!

Unbelievable

The Green Benches: Exclusive: Richard Branson's Virgin gain contract to profit from those suffering from sexual diseases in West Sussex

Bear in mind the CCG is supposed to do the comissioning for West Sussex. How did they not know about Virgin winning the bid? Are the CCGs just there for show?

Osbourne's Captain Renault moment

George Osborne 'shocked' at level of tax avoidance among wealthy | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Just goes to show the top Tories don't live in the real world, or are very disingeneous. It would be instructive to see Osborne's tax returns, as well as those of his wife, to see if he is avoiding tax.