KelvinsRightGlove Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 does cheaper mean 'the best'? And the Tory MP on the board of that company is, coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 30 January, 2015 And the Tory MP on the board of that company is, coincidence? How would he know the answer to that? Batman wasn't involved in the tender process (to my knowledge) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 No, of course not... How come when its taxpayers money to a not for profit organisation you regular as clockwork trot out the line about not trusting the government to spend your money more wisely than you, but when its more taxpayers money going to a private company you reverse your line. I find uncritical parroting of party lines bizarre . If I had donated to buying that scanner and it was going to be used by a for profit company I'd want there to be a legal challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 How come when its taxpayers money to a not for profit organisation you regular as clockwork trot out the line about not trusting the government to spend your money more wisely than you, but when its more taxpayers money going to a private company you reverse your line. I find uncritical parroting of party lines bizarre . If I had donated to buying that scanner and it was going to be used by a for profit company I'd want there to be a legal challenge. It certainly needs an audit, says this now-retired capital and procurement auditor! I might have a look at the European Journal later to see the wording of the original advertisement. But I'm sure someone's on the case. Interesting I think that Tory MP Malcolm Rifkind sits on the board of the 'successful' bidder and gets £60K p.a. for doing so. Value for money from their perspective! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 (edited) Interesting I think that Tory MP Malcolm Rifkind sits on the board of the 'successful' bidder and gets £60K p.a. for doing so. Value for money from their perspective! The ONLY reason for having high profile politicians on the board of a company seeking public sector contracts is to attempt to influence the process by lobbying old friends and attempting to intimidate the team letting the contract. Its not skills based, Rifkind has no health expertise. I was involved in letting the refuse and recycling contract for Brighton & Hove and had an ex minister on one of the tendering companies phone me up to explain how Parliamentary committees and the High Court would be seeking to review any unfavourable decision. Edited 30 January, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 The ONLY reason for having high profile politicians on the board of a company seeking public sector contracts is to attempt intimidate the team letting the contract. Rifkind has no health expertise. I was involved in letting the refuse and recycling contract for Brighton & Hove and had an ex minister on one of the tendering companies phone me up to explain how Parliamentary committees and the High Court would be seeking to review any unfavourable decision. Brighton and Hove's recycling record is hardly a shining beacon to be held up, as although the Council is run by the Green Party, I understand that their record is amongst the worst in the Country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 Brighton and Hove's recycling record is hardly a shining beacon to be held up, as although the Council is run by the Green Party, I understand that their record is amongst the worst in the Country The contract Im talking about was years ago, Ive don't know what is happening now - but typically contracts run for at least five years and sometimes 10. I doubt the Green Party had any hand in the tendering or letting process, simply inherited what was agreed before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 30 January, 2015 (edited) How come when its taxpayers money to a not for profit organisation you regular as clockwork trot out the line about not trusting the government to spend your money more wisely than you, but when its more taxpayers money going to a private company you reverse your line. Not quite an accurate reflection of my position on these sort of things. I'll clarify: On balance, I believe that companies specifically set up to run specific services are more often than not better at running said services than politicians/governments are. There are of course exceptions, and this particular case that's just been raised may well be one of them, who knows, but that's my general belief. In reply to the question "does cheaper mean 'the best'?", perhaps a more considered answer would have been "it depends" or "no, not always". Something costing £7m more may well end up being a better service. There again, it may not. It's not about the absolute cost, it's about what will be best value for money. If I buy a new pair of shoes for £20 that last 6 months are they better value for money than a £50 pair of shoes that last me 24 months? (copyright Dodgy Analogies Ltd). Unless we have sight of the tender process (which I assume we don't? which, if not, is a fair debate to be had of course) then we're not really in a position to comment on the pros and cons of each bid. Of course, that won't stop social media land jumping to the obvious "party line" conclusions.... Edited 30 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 30 January, 2015 (edited) It certainly needs an audit I agree that it should be made clear why the winning bid was successful and other bids weren't. For example, maybe the successful bidder are going to buy a better scanner than costs £7m more than the one that the public sector bid were proposing, hence the difference in price. Unless we know what gave rise to the different costs then it's difficult to judge one way or the other whether it's a good deal or not. Edited 30 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 (edited) On balance, I believe that companies specifically set up to run specific services are more often than not better at running said services than politicians/governments are. This statement betrays the fact you don't understand how the process works. Governments have no more or less say on how a contract is delivered whether it is let to to an outside company (who normally take on the existing staff and capital assets) or it is a directly managed operation. The successful bidder either deliverers the service to the standards, volumes and costs agreed, or it doesn't. Management of the contract by the letting body is the same whoever the provider is. [/color] In reply to the question "does cheaper mean 'the best'?", perhaps a more considered answer would have been "it depends" or "no, not always". Something costing £7m more may well end up being a better service. There again, it may not. It's not about the absolute cost, it's about what will be best value for money. If I buy a new pair of shoes for £20 that last 6 months are they better value for money than a £50 pair of shoes that last me 24 months? (copyright Dodgy Analogies Ltd). Yes, obviously. You say this as though it is a revelation which has never previously been considered by contracts teams. The fundamental issue with private contractors is that their primary motivation is, naturally, to make a profit. If things turn out to go less well than planned then they will cut costs to get back on the track envisaged in their business plan. If things still dont go well they can even deliberately crash the service in order to force an early get out. That is what happened in the waste service contract I was involved in. The successful bidder was nearly 30% cheaper than all other bids including the in house team. We knew they could not possibly deliver the service to the spec promised but the company successfully argued they were providing a loss leader to establish themselves in the UK market by running a flagship service that lots of other councils would want to contract to and under the terms of CCT we had to let to them. After a couple of years of losing money hand over fist they changed their mind and ran the service into the ground to an appalling level, causing the council to have to massively increase the compliance team in order to try and enforce at least some minimum standards. Eventually an acrimonious break was negotiated. your assumption is that private companies are more efficient. Though an attractive theory, in practice this tends to not be the case because they dont understand the business as well as the incumbent managers. As a result they tend to either overprice, and not get the contract or underprice and then run into problems running the service. The fact that in this case the contract has gone to a private company whose tender is £7m more, despite the in house team having a free scanner and the medical school supporting the in house bid makes it more odd, not less. ''' Edited 30 January, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 30 January, 2015 ''' Ok. Some fair points there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 Anyone who saw Burnhams car crash of an interview on Newsnight will see that he's all over place with this NHS " privatisation" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 30 January, 2015 (edited) Anyone who saw Burnhams car crash of an interview on Newsnight will see that he's all over place with this NHS " privatisation" . [video=youtube_share;TIrdyYe4r1E] More Labour NHS policy 'obfuscation' on today's 'Daily Politics' too... http://bbc.in/1A6rkAM Edited 30 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 I would be interested to know how the French health service works. I have been told it is excellent. Their rail service isn't too shabby either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 (edited) Normally there is one capable leader that people can switch their vote to, but imo all the parties current leadership is the weakest in living memory. Edited 30 January, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 Normally there is one capable leader that people can switch their vote to, but imo all the parties current leadership is the weakest in living memory. On this we agree. Cameron has his moments. He has demonstrated deft decorum and choice of phrase during parts of his time in office, not least during the initial findings of official complicity in the Hillsborough disaster. That aside, he's an utter bastard intent on selling the whole state to the private sector, waggling his fingers at the unemployed as he does so. Anyone with an ounce of sense should see this lot for the asset-strippers they are. Sold Royal Mail for a song, have allowed the private sector all over the NHS and in the midst of all this cash, have actually managed to borrow more than Labour did during their entire tenure while implementing a system of austerity and headline-grabbing caps. Miliband is emblematic of the entire Parliamentary Labour Party at the moment. Doesn't know who the f#ck he is or how he should connect with the British public. Electoral strategy tells them they should fight that fruitful C1 marginal ground, which pushes them away from the people that are not necessarily hoodwinked by the benefits dystopia that the Conservative PR department concocts. Miliband validates that bullsh!t every time he tries to achieve some sort of parity with it. Clegg is a political dead man walking. Sure, they may keep some of the seats where they have a good electoral following, but there's a damn good chance Clegg could be unseated in Sheffield. Student power and local embarrassment could be a powerful combination. Will be remembered as the man that destroyed the Lib Dems. Farage. The Goblin King. There's no doubting the relative oratory skill, his appeal to a broad range of people, who all seem to see something slightly different through the prism of UKIP. He'll splatter these goons during debate, and he isn't really that good himself. Weakest in living memory just about covers it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 30 January, 2015 [The Tories] have allowed the private sector all over the NHS I know I'm falling into a pap trap here but nothing ventured etc.... How does increasing private sector involvement in the NHS from 5% (under Labour) to 6% equate to "allowing the private sector all over the NHS"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 I know I'm falling into a pap trap here but nothing ventured etc.... How does increasing private sector involvement in the NHS from 5% (under Labour) to 6% equate to "allowing the private sector all over the NHS"? But Trousers, don't you see? That's a massive 20% increase! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 31 January, 2015 Share Posted 31 January, 2015 I know I'm falling into a pap trap here but nothing ventured etc.... How does increasing private sector involvement in the NHS from 5% (under Labour) to 6% equate to "allowing the private sector all over the NHS"? For once I agree with you. There is a particular incompetence in the Left's making this the central argument against the Tories' management of the NHS. The problems created since 2010 are far more root-and-branch than that, notably following the wholly preposterous Health and Social Care Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 31 January, 2015 Share Posted 31 January, 2015 What is very worrying is how the young 1st time voters clearly don't give a shiite and don't intend to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 31 January, 2015 Share Posted 31 January, 2015 What is very worrying is how the young 1st time voters clearly don't give a shiite and don't intend to vote. They don't realise that if they did, they might more going their way. There is a reason why pensions etc get protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 31 January, 2015 Share Posted 31 January, 2015 I know I'm falling into a pap trap here but nothing ventured etc.... How does increasing private sector involvement in the NHS from 5% (under Labour) to 6% equate to "allowing the private sector all over the NHS"? I'd first have to ask, where are you getting your figures from? I'd then have to ask why it was I was getting work offers off the likes of Virgin Care months before anything is official was announced, on the understanding that they have "already got" child services for the South West of England, and why it is that frontline services like child protection are being run for profit. Finally, I'd have to ask why, in a post that lambasted leaders of all colours, why you've got the blues about my statements on the Conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 31 January, 2015 I'd have to ask why, in a post that lambasted leaders of all colours, why you've got the blues about my statements on the Conservatives. Because I agree with everything else you said so no need to question it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 31 January, 2015 Share Posted 31 January, 2015 I'd first have to ask, where are you getting your figures from? . These figures were widely quoted . I've personally watched "This week"" "Daily Politics " and "News night" where they have been quoted and also accepted by the labour interviewee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 31 January, 2015 Share Posted 31 January, 2015 I know I'm falling into a pap trap here but nothing ventured etc.... How does increasing private sector involvement in the NHS from 5% (under Labour) to 6% equate to "allowing the private sector all over the NHS"? Apologies for potentially making stupid comments on a thread that I'm parachuting into without having studied the detail, but I believe the argument goes something like this: As BTT said below, contracts are awarded for multiple years - 5+ in many cases. Many of the contracts that make up the 94% of non-private sector spending (100%-6% from your figures), may not yet have fallen due for renewal during the tenure of twattery that is this coalition government. I would also imagine that the more valuable contracts would probably be the longer term ones - and therefore may still be under old terms and conditions. That's just a guess though. When they do fall for renewal, many will be put out to tender and will be won by private firms. It will therefore be likely that the 6% figure will rise - significantly according to Burham. So, a defender of the Labour position might suggest that, with the greatest of respect, we need to wait until all of the contracts in place when this coalescence of cockery took charge have been been renewed - before it's possible to judge the impact of the NHS free market experiment. As I say, I believe that is the argument. I don't know enough about it to reach a conclusion myself, but it looks to me that an election strategist in Tory HQ has brilliantly got Labour debating the 1% delta, when in fact the discussion should be about principles or privatisation. It's a wonderful piece of sleight of hand that has moved the Tory position from "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS" to "Our top-down reorganisation of the NHS hasn't had that much impact". Either way, it must have been doubly disappointing for Burnham to see Kirsty Wark from the lefter than left BBC, grilling him on it. TBH, I thought Burnham's position was pretty clear in that interview, and I also didn't think it was a car crash. His point seemed to be that the private sector is welcomed in the NHS to support the core, NHS-run services - IF the core, NHS services deem it necessary for "better patient outcomes". He was contrasting this with a position where "the market" (price, performance, penalties and profit) determines the NHS' top-down directions. He wouldn't be drawn on the amount of privatisation that was acceptable, which did make his argument look weaker, and Labour having kicked off the private sector involvement didn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 31 January, 2015 Share Posted 31 January, 2015 (edited) These figures were widely quoted . I've personally watched "This week"" "Daily Politics " and "News night" where they have been quoted and also accepted by the labour interviewee. Doesn't make them anymore meaningful. How do you define private sector (made up of heterogenous organisations with different motivations and expertise)? What kind of involvement are we talking about? Upstream or downstream activities? Core or noncore? Are they all circumstances in which markets are deemed to work best -at least theoretically (I.e. genuine contestability among providers, more or less complete user information, possibility for exit, easy to specify and monitor contracts -price rather than quality, though quality itself is a relative term)? It could be that what was outsourced under Labour was appropriate -indeed it might not have gone far enough; whereas what the Tories have outsourced is inappropriate. And vice-versa. Either way, headline numbers without such context just invite a heap of apple and pears comparisons that do more to obscure and confuse than illuminate and inform. Of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone that politicians accept such statements at face value - from personal experience, most are as thick as pigs**t and have enough trouble staying on top of their brief. Edited 31 January, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 1 February, 2015 Share Posted 1 February, 2015 He wouldn't be drawn on the amount of privatisation that was acceptable, which did make his argument look weaker, and Labour having kicked off the private sector involvement didn't help. I was minded to recall similarities with the Paxman/Howard interview where Paxman continously pressed Howard for a answer. Kirsty Wark wasn't quite as persistent, but it still made Burnham look evasive and weak, as you say. That will be the overriding impression that the interviews leaves in most people's memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 2 February, 2015 Share Posted 2 February, 2015 So the Green Party has dropped its ludicrous Citizens Income policy of giving everyone £72 a week. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11383801/Greens-ditch-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.html I guess that was always on the cards after Natalie Bennett's car crash defence of it to Andrew Marr on the Politics Show recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 February, 2015 Share Posted 2 February, 2015 Lucas was on Westminster hour last week and used that line " long term aspiration , but not in manifesto" for every policy she was asked about . Going to be a bloomin small document their manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 February, 2015 Share Posted 2 February, 2015 So the Green Party has dropped its ludicrous Citizens Income policy of giving everyone £72 a week. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11383801/Greens-ditch-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.html I guess that was always on the cards after Natalie Bennett's car crash defence of it to Andrew Marr on the Politics Show recently. I actually really liked the idea. Seem to remember some research that at a certain level, it's actually cheaper than means testing. I think people forget just how much money this country generates. The problem is usually getting the money back to the taxpayers, and usually about efficiency. Take the recent thread from Battydays about his missus doing temp nursing, as an example. IMO, all that agency money is wasted. The NHS would do a ton better if it was realistic about the amount of money it should be paying people or the amount of people it should hire in the first place. The NHS will permanently have temporary nurses until it is dismantled or serious reform is attempted. That's just one example. I'm sure others have similar stories, but in summary, I reckon we spend a lot of money that we just don't need to spend. I liked the idea of a Citizen's income because the vast majority of us pay something approaching 50% of our income. A non-means tested government universal payment would have reinforced the notion of "put in", "get back", something that people seem to have forgotten in the recent wave of demonisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 2 February, 2015 Share Posted 2 February, 2015 I actually really liked the idea. Seem to remember some research that at a certain level, it's actually cheaper than means testing. I think people forget just how much money this country generates. The problem is usually getting the money back to the taxpayers, and usually about efficiency. Take the recent thread from Battydays about his missus doing temp nursing, as an example. IMO, all that agency money is wasted. The NHS would do a ton better if it was realistic about the amount of money it should be paying people or the amount of people it should hire in the first place. The NHS will permanently have temporary nurses until it is dismantled or serious reform is attempted. That's just one example. I'm sure others have similar stories, but in summary, I reckon we spend a lot of money that we just don't need to spend. I liked the idea of a Citizen's income because the vast majority of us pay something approaching 50% of our income. A non-means tested government universal payment would have reinforced the notion of "put in", "get back", something that people seem to have forgotten in the recent wave of demonisations. The issue is that giving it away is easy, finding out where or how the government is wasting it, let alone stopping is a damn sight harder. If there was an easy £280 bn to be saved in the current economy, I am pretty sure the current lot would have jumped on that, eliminated the deficit and had some left over to buy the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 February, 2015 Share Posted 2 February, 2015 (edited) The issue is that giving it away is easy, finding out where or how the government is wasting it, let alone stopping is a damn sight harder. If there was an easy £280 bn to be saved in the current economy, I am pretty sure the current lot would have jumped on that, eliminated the deficit and had some left over to buy the next election. Whilst I dont agree with the £72pw giveaway for everybody - there is a real point about universal benefits being far cheaper to administer than means tested ones. I remember seeing a stat (admittedly years ago) that means tested benefits cost 85p in admin for every £1 given away. imo its preferable to give money to a few who dont need through universal benefits than to spend that money on admin and make people jump through hoops. The trouble with means testing is that its often those who most need the money who find the process of claiming the most impossible to negotiate. Edited 2 February, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 February, 2015 Share Posted 3 February, 2015 (edited) Whilst I dont agree with the £72pw giveaway for everybody - there is a real point about universal benefits being far cheaper to administer than means tested ones. I remember seeing a stat (admittedly years ago) that means tested benefits cost 85p in admin for every £1 given away. imo its preferable to give money to a few who dont need through universal benefits than to spend that money on admin and make people jump through hoops. The trouble with means testing is that its often those who most need the money who find the process of claiming the most impossible to negotiate. If it's not universal, you're means testing to extent, even if it is a crude and cheap instrument like the implementation of the child benefit cuts. The real kicker there was that broadly, I could live with some sort of cutoff point, but we still apparently lack the nous to suss combined household income through the tax system, so they went for the quick and dirty option of discriminating on a single salary, and therefore discriminated on those that choose to have a full time parent at home. I'd be affected in either calculation, so I've no axe to grind on that score, but I can see why others might. Unfortunately, means testing has too often just been about reducing the claimant count while simultaneously sending large wads to cash to Tory-leaning businesses like ATOS, that literally could not support themselves without the government handouts they get. The fit to work tests have been widely criticised, with some serious cases of misdiagnosis. The arrangement at present is broadly, "we'll give you more money if you take away more of their money". I love being in the US and telling their people that we'll fix any foreigner that falls injured here to the best of our abilities. It's something approaching genuine civilisation, isn't it? We lose those things at our peril, and on the assumption that we don't all blow each other to pieces in the next 20 years, soft power is going to become more important. Being able to say, "yeah, and we bung every citizen $100 a week, just for being British, like" would be fun. Edited 3 February, 2015 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 3 February, 2015 Share Posted 3 February, 2015 Broadly sympathetic to some of these ideas, though too much emphasis is placed on the income rather than the wealth side of the equation. Having a flow of income -often tantamount to living hand to mouth- doesn't encourage the same behavioural change -a sense of responsibility and long-termism- that owning assets can, a point made by radicals like Thomas Paine and more recently Bruce Ackerman, Michael Sherraden and Julian Le Grand. Labour dabbled in this area -universal Child Trust Funds, later abolished by the Tories, being the flagship policy- but ultimately it felt like a fashion statement, a concession to a few wonks rather than a truly articulated initiative. Much more could be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 3 February, 2015 Share Posted 3 February, 2015 I have to say that I think it's funny to see people pulling apart the policies of the minor parties. I think we learned two things from the last election that should probably temper our analysis of manifesto pledges. Firstly, (even more than is usually the case) It doesn't matter what specific 'commitments' are in a manifesto, because if a coalition government is formed, then those 'commitments' will be likely be negotiated away. Even what seem like fundamental principles that strike right to the heart of what the party appears to be about cease to look sacrosanct and bovine once a little power is dangled in front of our politicians' faces. Secondly, and as a result of the above, the 'commitments' that minor parties make should be seen in the context of the 'reigning-in' effect that it will have on the major parties if they are invited to form a minority of a coalition government. So if I were to read the Green manifesto and their now backtracked £72 'commitment', I think I'd expect their potential role in a coalition government to push it to the ecological left. In that context, if I were in a constituency where the Greens had a chance of winning, I wouldn't think it a wasted vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 3 February, 2015 (edited) Just watched Ed Balls on Newsnight, taking car crash interviews to a new level.... [video=youtube_share;YUxRea2mmgA] Edited 4 February, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 4 February, 2015 Share Posted 4 February, 2015 I'm not sure I can stand almost 100 more days of trousers-whataboutery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 4 February, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure I can stand almost 100 more days of trousers-whataboutery. Fret ye not old bean.....only 91 to go now. #everycloud #fightingwhatabouterywithwhataboutery Edited 4 February, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Putting this here, not sure if it's deserving of it's own thread. It certainly reaffirms a lot of what I have posted about Job Centres and their culture from personal experience, ultimately they are there to cut down on the amount of benefits paid - not actually help the people seeking help: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/04/jobcentre-adviser-play-benefit-sanctions-angela-neville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Much more detail, including internal memos, here:- https://endpropaganda.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/damning-evidence-of-dwp-sanction-targets-floods-committee-from-within-dwp/ The only people worse than these dirty c**ts are those that vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Much more detail, including internal memos, here:- https://endpropaganda.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/damning-evidence-of-dwp-sanction-targets-floods-committee-from-within-dwp/ The only people worse than these dirty c**ts are those that vote for them. Grrrr, proper makes my blood boil that. Dredges up some really dark times personally. F''k the lot of them. F''k this ideological attack on those most in need of help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 (edited) Grrrr, proper makes my blood boil that. Dredges up some really dark times personally. F''k the lot of them. F''k this ideological attack on those most in need of help. Some more, from the Mirror this time. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-two-killed-himself-because-1844633 I've never voted Tory, but I understood why people did, especially on the financial front. You'd normally get a nice tax break if you were working, they did the free money thing on council housing stock. I got their appeal to the soulless aspirational c**t part of the electorate. With the financial incentive gone, Conservative voters effectively just voting to kill people now. Fkn scroungers, eh? In the meantime, ATOS are getting 110m a year in government handouts, with a further 60m going on all the appeals that are generated. A third of all its decisions are overturned. Edited 5 February, 2015 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Some more, from the Mirror this time. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-two-killed-himself-because-1844633 I've never voted Tory, but I understood why people did, especially on the financial front. You'd normally get a nice tax break if you were working, they did the free money thing on council housing stock. I got their appeal to the soulless aspirational c**t part of the electorate. With the financial incentive gone, Conservative voters effectively just voting to kill people now. Fkn scroungers, eh? In the meantime, ATOS are getting 110m a year in government handouts, with a further 60m going on all the appeals that are generated. A third of all its decisions are overturned. hmmm. I never considered myself a Tory, but used to find myself more closely aligned to them than anyone else. I've moved a long, long way from that. Pretty ashamed I ever flirted with that idea, to be honest. Oh well, I was (still am really) young, it's silly to suggest your views don't change with experience (yes, I'm trying to dig myself out of a hole here). But yeah, I agree with your post. Still no idea who I actually support, or who I would vote for. No-one really represents who I am or what I believe. Guess this is a problem at large for people my age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 hmmm. I never considered myself a Tory, but used to find myself more closely aligned to them than anyone else. I've moved a long, long way from that. Pretty ashamed I ever flirted with that idea, to be honest. Oh well, I was (still am really) young, it's silly to suggest your views don't change with experience (yes, I'm trying to dig myself out of a hole here). But yeah, I agree with your post. Still no idea who I actually support, or who I would vote for. No-one really represents who I am or what I believe. Guess this is a problem at large for people my age. It's a problem with representative democracy, particularly now that ideological differences between the duopoly are close to zero and you seem the same sort of divisive, toxic characters on both sides of the House. I mean, I'm having a pop at the Tories here, but Blair is an untried war criminal and Mandelson was one of the creepiest politicians in living memory. Any Labour Party with him near the top isn't really a party of the working man anymore, more a vehicle for personal aggrandisement. But yeah, what choice? Every serious contender for number 10 has the same basic plan of more debt and interminable submission to the various empires we've been made part of. We'll do whatever the US wants us to do militarily, and we'll impose austerity on our own people to satisfy the central banks and those that regulate the supply of money. I am not surprised you have no-one to vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Much more detail, including internal memos, here:- https://endpropaganda.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/damning-evidence-of-dwp-sanction-targets-floods-committee-from-within-dwp/ The only people worse than these dirty c**ts are those that vote for them. The only people WORSE are voters? What the hell is wrong with you? I can only assume this is another variant on your rap that the British electorate are all (except you of course) 'morons'. If you're going to coarsen political debate to this level, I really suggest you take a holiday from humans. These revelations are appalling - but they are just that: revelations. Claimants and investigators have put together the story of a culture of bullying and intimidation, not just of claimants but also of staff members. Such behaviour is, among other things, illegal. Only a fool would suggest that anyone 'voted' for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 The only people WORSE are voters? What the hell is wrong with you? I can only assume this is another variant on your rap that the British electorate are all (except you of course) 'morons'. If you're going to coarsen political debate to this level, I really suggest you take a holiday from humans. These revelations are appalling - but they are just that: revelations. Claimants and investigators have put together the story of a culture of bullying and intimidation, not just of claimants but also of staff members. Such behaviour is, among other things, illegal. Only a fool would suggest that anyone 'voted' for that. What a constructive post. If you can genuinely look at people dying because they've been sanctioned and need shít like refrigerated insulin, and still put your cross against the name of a Conservative candidate, then yeah, you're worse than the people you're electing. Otherwise, you've not taken the time to find out, despite the stories being plastered all over social media, national newspapers, etc. So yeah, fúck the haters, fúck the indifferent and fúck the self-blinkering stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 These revelations are appalling - but they are just that: revelations. Claimants and investigators have put together the story of a culture of bullying and intimidation, not just of claimants but also of staff members. Such behaviour is, among other things, illegal. Only a fool would suggest that anyone 'voted' for that. When you consider the image portrayed of those on benefits in the media - salacious and hyperbolic front pages about 'benefits scroungers', the weird obsession with the likes of Josie Cunningham and Tweet-bait TV shows such as Benefits Street - I would suggest it's not a great leap to think that people would quite happily vote for this treatment of those in need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 When you consider the image portrayed of those on benefits in the media - salacious and hyperbolic front pages about 'benefits scroungers', the weird obsession with the likes of Josie Cunningham and Tweet-bait TV shows such as Benefits Street - I would suggest it's not a great leap to think that people would quite happily vote for this treatment of those in need. You've watched Benefits Street, I haven't. You know who Josie Cunningham is, I don't. If there is an obsession (and media hype about them isn't matched by viewing figures) its with you. You've just admitted your politics have changed radically - so lets not point the finger at everybody else eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 When you consider the image portrayed of those on benefits in the media - salacious and hyperbolic front pages about 'benefits scroungers', the weird obsession with the likes of Josie Cunningham and Tweet-bait TV shows such as Benefits Street - I would suggest it's not a great leap to think that people would quite happily vote for this treatment of those in need. Verbal is mates with the people that made Benefits Street. Like him, they make TV on behalf of the sitting government designed to validate fúcking shocking behaviour, like invading countries or the indirect killing of poor people through benefits sanctions. Like him, they'll probably disappear off the artistic roll call when common sense prevails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Verbal is mates with the people that made Benefits Street. Like him, they make TV on behalf of the sitting government designed to validate fúcking shocking behaviour, like invading countries or killing poor people. Like him, they'll probably disappear off the artistic roll call when common sense prevails. More made up stuff courtesy of the fantasy that happens in Pap's mind. Go Pap, spearhead the revolution that only you are smart enough to plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now