POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

Report that average household debt is £13,000 per family. Up 13% since last year. (LINK)

[Tardis]

So Ed and the Unions are singing from the same hymn sheet according to Len McCluskey, but only UNISON has the opt in scheme to the political levy (I think that was after they fell out with Bliar). The only argument put forward on Today against it by the Union man on this morning was that the money available would fall to 10% of current levels. According to the other two parties, it is Labour's funding from the Unions which was non-negoitiable for party funding, but that might be politiking

Interesting that Ed dodged all questions about Brown with reference to second incomes and representing their electorate

More interestingly, if all Labour Party elected officials have to be members of a Union, how does that play with his 'conflict of interest' when it comes to legislation of the work place and unions?

He has asked some very serious questions, but I wonder if he can actually unite everyone, rather than look even more out of touch.

Of course, funding isn't just an issue for Labour, but the possibility of removal of funding may mean that they are reliant upon the same kind of sources

[Tardis]

According to the ONS, income inequality is at it's lowest since 1986

[Tardis]

Is this really why MP's are against IPSA's recommendations?:

In an attempt to justify the spending rises, IPSA has told MPs they will have to produce an annual assessment to show ‘they’re worth it’. This will take in contributions they’ve made to the House — through legislation or select committees — as well as their work with constituents. Some of this information is already compiled, but other parts are new. More transparency on what our representatives get up to is never a bad thing.

[Stanley]

Reducing the cost of welfare is one of Osborn's stated objectives. Making applicants wait for a week before pay out of benefit is one cunning wheeze. See this LINK for a sign of how this is affecting those unlucky enough to be in the firing line. The Trussell Trust reports that since April 1 when major cuts came in, use of their food banks has increased 200%. It's a straw in the wind indicating how the increasing level of cuts is affecting the poorest in the community. Remember that in order to get a hand out the claimant has to get a voucher from social services or some other responsible body. These are not freeloaders but desperate people with no way of buying food to put on the table. That is unless they go to one of the usurers on the High Street who will give them a loan at exorbitant interest rates. Meanwhile, civil servants wine and dine on ministry credit cards under the umbrella of 'hospitality'. One law for the rich...... Remember the Tory peer saying that the food banks were only used because free food was available?
Later, after reading the BET... I see that the churches are considering setting a food bank up in Barlick and Earby. Also a half page advertisement for a pawn shop in Colne. Then I read Stephenson's parliamentary puff telling me what a good job the Tories are doing safeguarding the NHS. I'm old enough to remember the worst days of WW2 and nobody went hungry then because rationing and price controls ensured as far as possible that what was available was shared out equally. I sometimes wonder if I'm living in the same country....

[Bruff]

I've got no problem at all with MPs being subject to some performance management system, suitable designed to be as objective as possible. I would have thought we should so far as is possible, remove the subjective elements - just because one's MP provides a response not to one's personal liking does not mean they are doing a 'bad job' so to speak. There might be very good reasons for this (though sometimes there may not be). And simply looking at the number of questions asked by an MP in Parliament is not a good objective measure either - these all come at a cost as a public servant somewhere has provided either the written or oral answer (with background) for the Minister, as Ministers don't tend to write their own. Some years back, an MP out to 'make their name' was asking 50+ questions a week, every week, on a huge swathe of topics and often esoteric. It was estimated that in one Parliamentary session, this activity had cost the tax payer several hundreds of thousands of pounds. We need to be able to judge whether this was time and effort well spent.

I was quite interested in the suggestion that the salary stipend you get from sitting on a Select Committee would increase with time in the role, as a reflection of the skills and experience you gain and so bring to the role in time. This is why progression payments exist for some public servants - this payment similarly reflects the development of skills and experience until such time as you hit the 'rate for the job' which is then your salary and subject to no more automatic increases. So an Executive Officer in the Civil Service will start on about 16K and with skills and experience progress to about 23K, which is their salary.

These payments are a bad thing apparently (except for the armed forces where I guess a new squaddie staying for ever on 12K, or whatever they start on, rather than getting progressed as they become trained to be a better squaddie, is a sell too far). So I would expect this too to be rejected (at least by Government MPs).

Richard Broughton

[Bruff]

''Meanwhile, civil servants wine and dine on ministry credit cards under the umbrella of 'hospitality'.''

I saw that story. Sadly there was no context so one was unable to judge whether the expenditure was justified. An anecdote. I remember a colleague once buying some balloons and string from a supermarket around Christmas, a great big bag full on a Departmental credit card. You can imagine a possible headline in the absence of context. But, these balloons were the cheapest way of getting a telemetry system above experiments to model the effects of BLEVEs (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosions).

When this Government came to power they did an audit of all spending down the last pound under the previous administration. What fun. One blinkin' Defence Minister spent 200 quid going to Blackpool!! What was rather less reported was that this was to meet war veterans group who had written to him with concerns. He felt it respectful to meet them in person. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Give us the context and we can then make a judgement on where the shenanigans have gone on. In its absence, it's simply a rather trite finger-pointing exercise to reinforce a stereotype and/or existing prejudice. Which on reflection is probably why no context is given.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

Report that average household debt is £13,000 per family. Up 13% since last year. (LINK)

I wonder how they calculate their figure for `average household debt'? Do they take the total value of all UK household debt then divide by the total number of households in the UK, or do they divide by the number of households that are in debt? If they include the households that have no debts then the results will be skewed and will give a false (low) impression of how serious the individual debts are. How you calculate depends on what you're trying to find out.

[Stanley]

Tiz, damned statistics again....
Richard, you're right about the dangers of the credit card quote but I was angry when I wrote that....
As for MP's pay. Broadly speaking I'm in favour of a realistic wage for the same reason that the original £400 per annum payment was made, to enable working class people to take on the job. As long as I can remember, calls for a realistic wage have foundered, largely one suspects because of pressure from the richer end to preserve the exclusivity of membership. This led of course to compensation in other ways creeping in and the eventual expenses scandal. I don't think the problem (which still exists) of exploitation of peripheral benefits can ever be addressed properly until the basic salary is improved and proper commercial controls placed on other payments. I think this may be the reasoning behind the committee's recommendation for a rise but of course they couldn't have picked a worse time to do it. On the whole they should press on and at the same time address the anomalies. High time the remuneration system was properly controlled.

[Tardis]

This could also be an issue:

To fund the salary increases; resettlement payments for retiring long-serving MPs — worth up to £64,766 — are on the way out. They were originally abolished following the MPs’ expenses scandal but were reintroduced on an interim basis. The £15 allowance for evening meal and taxis after late Parliamentary sittings are also disappearing

Plus the drop in pension.

If this money is switched from 'allowances' to 'salary' then effectively I believe that it would also be subject to at least the 45% tax rate

Is it a rise at all?

[Stanley]

Glowing report this morning about increasing levels of activity in the economy. I'm not so bothered about that because God knows we get these regularly. What attracted my attention was that in the report the journalist said that "everybody is spending more". Really? Including those hit by benefit cuts (and the cap comes into force today sucking more money out of that sector). A|ll I can say is that I'll believe it when I see GDP go up to a reasonable level and some of the cuts reinstated.

[Tardis]

This week is probably all going to be about the 'scandal' of the NHS and the BBC is carrying a report that NHS failings 'suppressed for electoral reasons'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23309720

East Lancashire is one of those named.

Unless of course Kate manages to produce the royal baby.

[Tardis]

Report that average household debt is £13,000 per family. Up 13% since last year. (LINK)

I wonder how they calculate their figure for `average household debt'? Do they take the total value of all UK household debt then divide by the total number of households in the UK, or do they divide by the number of households that are in debt? If they include the households that have no debts then the results will be skewed and will give a false (low) impression of how serious the individual debts are. How you calculate depends on what you're trying to find out.

It is total debt, guesstimate, including mortgages, not necessarily rent arrears, divided by number of households.

So yes, whilst debt may be concentrated in some households, there will be others who have paid down their debt

[Tardis]

In less than 12 hours, the opposition has gone from attacking Welfare, to saying that the cap doesn't go far enough. Is Liam Byrne actually on message?

[Stanley]

Jeremy Hunt is pursuing his policy of bad mouthing the NHS. He should be ashamed of himself.

[Tardis]

The battle over accountability in the NHS begins.

The report is shocking, coming on top of the abandoning of the Liverpool Care Pathway because it was 'misunderstood'

Whilst the politicians slug it out, and I do remember Postman Johnson being asked to resign when the Staffs debacle broke (and he refused), I do wonder what systems have been put in place to reduce the expected death rates?

[Stanley]

The Keogh Report is not 'shocking', it's reasonable and measured. (LINK) The shocking thing is how it is being used by Hunt to attack Labour as an election ploy and a lever to forward his plans to privatise as much of the NHS as possible. The figures used were from 2011 and 2012, now who was in charge then?
Noticeable that despite growing problems in the Mediterranean countries there is littl;e news leaking out. Could this be because there's a German election in the offing?
Parliamentary committee expresses surprise at the number of arms licences issued for exports to countries supposedly banned. They should have been reading PE for the last three years....

[Tardis]

I suppose it does depend upon your ability to be shocked by the Keogh report. The bits in the Lancashire Telegraph certainly concern me, but I'm guessing that they won't put it all up on their website until later. Seemingly being treated like a human being is optional in East Lancs NHS and they don't have the necessary processes in place to gather and react to feedback.

Edited to give the link now that the LT have put up the specific bit where they blame management, not politicians (there are other stories too):

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/ne ... al_bosses/

The Ex-Labour leader of the County Council, who was Chair of the Trust, along with the chief nurse, both resigned yesterday 'citing personal reasons'

I'm also aware, however, that no amount of politicking will solve the problems within the NHS

The findings did not come as a surprise to me, the issue is whether the people within the organisation are actually capable of running it. My own experiences would say that they aren't

[Tardis]

ONS says unemployment is down again by 57,000

[Tardis]

It could be a long summer on the left with this infighting:

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/07/ ... tep-guide/

[Stanley]

When the final analysis was done about unemployment in the 1930s it was generally agreed that the most significant indicator was the long term unemployed. This is still rising, over a million now. Highest since 1996. The raw unemployment figure tells us nothing as we don't know what the wages or hours are in the 'jobs' created.

This LINK probably gives a more realistic slant on employment and incomes.
Also, the Children's Society view LINK

[Tardis]

This LINK probably gives a more realistic slant on employment and incomes.

This is mostly the issue of a non-functioning banking system, when even those on benefits 'have to have' a bank account in order to have benefits paid to them. There is also the benefits system itself which pays out on a 13 month year, when actual real life is 12 months. Possibly denying people access to the cheaper energy tariffs because of 'cash flow'. Try juggling that on those high rent properties, a legacy of poor regulation.

Also, the Children's Society view LINK

I might agree with this, except there were already quite draconian measures in place to stop you getting Crisis Loans. The Last Labour Govt targetted this by ensuring everyone had to reapply for benefit after completing their 'training courses', thus denying people access to the crisis loan facility. A simple churn having a major effect, at least this has now been removed and may actually be causing an anomaly in the statistics. The better figure would be the number economically inactive.

Once upon a time there were grants, now they are loans which have to be paid back and those repayments can be up to 10% of your benefit.

I would need to see much clearer explanation of the differences and if the services were open and transparent then you would be able to see what people are applying for crisis loans for.

[Tardis]

Lib Dems have withdrawn the whip from David Ward MP

[Tardis]

Is this politics?

Consultation sent out via LancsPCC about "Stop and Search"

http://www.lancashire-pcc.gov.uk/Get-In ... Polls.aspx

[plaques]

The crime figures continue their downward spiral. This is obviously good news for everyone. Both the politicians (Cameron) and the police are keen to offer their reasons why this is happening. Charts of police numbers against falling crime don't seem to correlate. Cameron's explanation is equally un-persuasive.
Some while ago I read the suggestion it was because of the ageing population. Ie: old people are more law abiding. Perhaps this is the real reason but since the aged have become the fall guy with respect to the NHS its not in their interest to start handing brownie points out in this manner.