OneGuyFromBarlick

Personally i think the 'Free Schools' are the thin edge of the wedge to introduce extra charges via supplements which may gradually drift into a covert selection process. The last paragraph on Stanley's link brings to mind Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New Wold' where children were taken round the hospital wards as a warning to those who bucked the trend and didn't take their 'State, "Soma"' medication. Alluding to hallucinatory drugs or subliminal brain washing.

[quote]The May election might possibly result in a government that gets a chance to reverse this[\quote]

Probably not, unfortunately. No party seems to have grasped the extent of what needs to be done, and what the country is capable of doing.
In each of the constituencies where I have an interest (Home, In-Laws and Mother's) I would probably vote differently based far more on local issues and candidates than any other reason. One place is ignored and becoming a depressed area, which I wont benefit from any kind of 'regeneration' (though I could see where it is needed and how it it could be achieved If the local communities were serious about changing things for the future), another area is having an unwarrented change steamrollered all over it, supported by all five of the main english parties at all levels despite the opposistion of residents in the most affected areas. Oddly I find that Burnley seems to have got the balance of economic soundness and human concern about right at the present time, something I did not expect, my main worry up here is the potential of further motorway type extensions over the former railway route (though I doubt anything will happen over the course of the next parliament).

Probably a past government that we should have had, but never got, was a Labour Administration led by John Major.

Whyperion wrote:
Probably a past government that we should have had, but never got, was a Labour Administration led by John Major.

I assume you mean John Smith rather than Major or was that a Freudian slip.

Fascinating to speculate where we would be now had John Smith not died early....
P is right about the thin end of the wedge in education. The target of the modern breed of politicians who are besotted with money and the market is to 'outsource' or 'devolve' as much responsibility as possible whilst keeping a tight hold on the purse strings. They call it 'less government' but in fact is more manipulation and interference aimed at getting back to the halcyon days when the rich and powerful had complete control. All you had to do with the 'plebs' was maintain them in a fit enough condition to breed and provide a stock of cannon and factory fodder.
I have argued for years that we need to make a step change in the way primary schools are funded, staffed and administered. Far more important than higher education, if the base is right the top will look after itself. The coming crisis in Primary places will have to be addressed soon so alternative routes for funding have to be found. Meanwhile we invest in Trident and aircraft carriers.....

Did anyone catch Margaret Hodge in full flow with the lady who was the director in charge of compliance at HSBC when the rogue accounts were being created? Rona Fairhead is now chair of the BBC Trust and Margaret said she should resign from that post. It later transpired that Fairhead is still working for HSBC part time. See THIS for the latest development. Margaret has been accused of bullying. She admitted afterwards that she had been angry but I don't see anything wrong with people like this in high profile jobs with enormous salaries being pressed hard when there is evidence that they have been incompetent. More power to Margaret Hodge's elbow!

Have you done your 'due diligence' on Hodge. It's not all admirable.

Doesn't 'any place, any where, say the same thing twice?

"Bucket Head" oddly enough that is my name for Simon Cowell of the X Factor. More to do with his hairstyle than the contents of his cranium. I am sure that most of us appreciate the fact that over time there has been a dilution of our original status of being English, Scots, Welsh or Irish, due to a degree of immigration. For the greater part this was restricted to some extent by distances involved, 200 years ago for example it was largely from within the British Isles or the near European Continent, it does of course go back much further due to invasion, at which time it had more to do with rape than consent. Looking at what we have become over time, I am sure that the majority understand that progress is the way forward, but this should not be at the risk of our fundamental core values, the basic culture of what we call Britain, and home, has over many years changed and despite our size and reduced capability is still regarded with a fair degree of esteem. We in these Islands have continuously moved forwards over centuries, sometimes at great cost, there are others that will not move on despite the impact that the modern world can have. A situation has developed where conflict is inevitable between the main present day factions, and in order to reduce the size of such conflicts, all parties need to compromise, whether the problem is cultural or political, it is of no value whatsoever to tell "A" what they have to do, whilst allowing "B" to continue as they have done for centuries without being more flexible. Freedom of speech is a valuable commodity, so is freedom of thought, we are fortunate that here, this is how it has been for many years. We all have our differing views on what we would wish for, what we would like to see, the changes that would appeal to us, and we all know what may go wrong if our wishes come to fruition, but do not work. What I regard as my generation, which also includes they who were born here just prior to, during, or just after World War Two, have much in common, it was not an easy start, yet in the years that followed, we were given opportunities that were then more or less unknown, those of us who embraced what was on offer were given the chance to improve not just our own environment, but with understanding, that of others as well, not all availed themselves of this opportunity. Now, in this new age such opportunity is still in place here in this country, but it is still up to the individual to either reap the benefits or just ignore them. The difference now is that the benefits are too often for the good of the individual, and not the community in general, in some cases, selfishness has overcome common sense.
What we have at present in the UK is to a degree being denigrated by the “Blame Culture” its always someone else’s fault, the Government, the Social Services, The Security Services, the Police, the list is endless. Girls go abroad to join IS, the sex scandals in Rotherham, Rochdale, and Oxford et al. all blamed on the authorities. Hillsborough, strikes, the overwhelmed NHS, never the fault of they, or their families who make the most noise, yet are in part responsible. We bemoan the lack of funding for good causes in this country whilst at the same time chucking money at others who now have the opportunity to sort out their own problems.

Thomo I agree with you, now there's a surprise. There was and probably always will be the element of 'look after Number 1 first'. Although in the past, having done that people looked round to help others. Unfortunately, the Number 1 doctrine was picked up by Milton Friedman (the economist) as good but the second bit was considered bad or even contemptible. The ultimate drive of monetarism was to control inflation through the banking system and basically to hold prices down by increasing the level of unemployment. Promoting greed, for example by selling publicly owned assets at knock down prices, eg: nationalised industries and council houses, served to bolster the Number 1 element while derogating the community component. It will be very difficult to change the mind set of people who still think that everything should be driven by the profit motive.
To some degree I think 'the blame culture' is part of the same mind set that sees it more profitable to sit back and let someone else do all the work then if anything goes wrong, which it surely will, jump in and make a nice little living out of it. Not surprisingly we have reached a point where the best paid jobs in most walks of life are those that 'talk' for a living. Its about time we gave over 'Talking the talk' and started 'Walking the walk'.

Talking of money, banks etc I hope you've all been listening to David Graeber's series of daily 15-minute radio 4 programmes `Promises, Promises: A History of Debt'. I found the first couple of them a bit stodgy but after that got really interested and learnt a lot. It's not just about debt but about everything to do with debt, money, currency. The last one I listened to was about the conquistadors in Mexico... fascinating stuff. Graeber upsets many preconceived notions and bases his claims on evidence from research.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6/episodes/guide

I've been listening to him in the shed Tiz. Isn't R4 wonderful....

I don't watch much TV and of the programmes I do see some of them could have been presented just as well (or better) on radio. I sit there watching somebody talking to me as he walks down a crowded street or sits in a Tube train carriage, or it's just `talking heads' in a studio. It would be better without the distractions. On the other hand, there are subjects which benefit massively from visual presentation, the Coast programmes for example. We forget now how folk used to listen to the radio before they had TV. I was leaning on the kitchen window sill looking out at the garden as the 6.00pm news began yesterday and I recalled my Dad's story of looking out of the window at RAF Manby barracks with the radio on and hearing Chamberlain saying ""This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final Note....I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany." He didn't need any TV pictures to tell him what that meant. He'd already been in the RAF for a year and was looking at outdated aircraft, no match for Me109s.

Very true Tiz. A little information in a simple media can speak volumes, too much information poorly delivered is often useless.

Stanley wrote:Did anyone catch Margaret Hodge in full flow with the lady who was the director in charge of compliance at HSBC when the rogue accounts were being created? Rona Fairhead is now chair of the BBC Trust and Margaret said she should resign from that post. It later transpired that Fairhead is still working for HSBC part time. See THIS for the latest development. Margaret has been accused of bullying. She admitted afterwards that she had been angry but I don't see anything wrong with people like this in high profile jobs with enormous salaries being pressed hard when there is evidence that they have been incompetent. More power to Margaret Hodge's elbow!

Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo did a good job on Margaret Hodge last night. Portillo pointed out that the argument she used to attack Rona Fairhead - either complicit or incompetent - could equally well be applied to her when as head of Islington Council for ten years, she allowed their childrens' care homes to infiltrated by paedophiles.
Neil said she was currently 'grandstanding', and that she was headed for a big fall. All present agreed. They did not mention her family's business Stemcor, which would merit a closer look.

I think all the above has been covered in Private Eye, but it's a while ago.

That approach is what some folk call ‘whataboutery’ or ‘whataboutism’. That is, it’s a distraction technique to avoid the matter at hand. Thus, Mr Portillo simply avoids the very legitimate questions asked of the HSBC lady by asking ‘what about’ Mrs Hodge’s actions as leader of Islington Council. Her argument on HSBC stands whatever her own failings or whatever.

Whataboutery was allegedly first coined during the Troubles in Northern Ireland where each side would avoid accountability for their actions by pointing to the actions of the other side, and so their ‘hypocrisy’. ‘Whataboutism’ was coined during the Cold War when the Russian’s would respond to any criticism with ‘what about the West’s action in/on ‘x’.

Classically, the technique is the logical fallacy known a tu quoque.

It’s a bit disreputable as a tool in argument and Mr Portillo, or Mr Neil or anyone for that matter, might use it less if every time they did they were reminded of their using the techniques of Soviet Russia and sectarian Ulster.

Richard Broughton

Well I fell for that bit of sophistry didn't I?
(the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.)
I guess that puts me in the 'ego quoque' category.

Richard. Thanks for the (as usual) incisive argument. If the same technique was used on Neill or Portaloo they would be in even greater difficulty. What matters is, as you say, the questions asked and the replies given. Margaret Hodge knows she got angry and has said so but that doesn't alter the fact that Rona Fairhead got, and deserved, a dose of reality. Besides, on a different level, poachers make the best gamekeepers.
I am reminded of Mark Twain who is reported to have said that the best river pilots are the ones who have hit the most rocks (I admit I have never found the source), if we apply this and assume present integrity, all that matters is present performance. On that basis she has my support.

See THIS for a BBC report on the news that the IPCC has taken over the investigation into historic sex abuse connected with very senior people in the Westminster village and, as it transpires now, the Metropolitan Police themselves. Simon Danczuk, the Rochdale MP, gave us a heads up yesterday that there were developments in the pipeline. It doesn't get much more serious than this. The enquiry confirms that the evidence given by the original whistle blower id credible. If it wasn't they wouldn't be doing this. I suspect we are going to hear a lot more about this.
Grant Shapps caught telling porkies.... I can't say that this surprises me, never did trust him.

Well readers will know that whenever I have had cause to refer to Mr Shapps I have been very careful to give him his full title: Grant Shapps aka Michael Green aka Sebastian Fox. This guy really is a piece of work and this is a minor detail in his litany of failings. Check out his rap on the knuckles over his over-stating of the number of people cancelling their ill-health assessments after the new rules came in; he said ‘a million’, the true number was 19,000. Absolutely reprehensible placing of the ‘shirker and skiver’ myth into the public domain – all the media ran with it).

And it’s hilarious the way the likes of the Health Secretary come out to support him noting that his critics on this current difficulty ‘hate business’. Let’s just remind ourselves of this ‘business’ shall we. Michael Green (aka Grant Shapps aka Sebastian Fox) was the purveyor of a product called ‘Stinking Rich’ (a charming name in itself, I think we’d agree), a ‘how to’ guide which enables folk to create websites Google prefers. It does this by crawling the web, snipping documents and text to create a whole new website of existing material suitably re-packaged and all without the original authors’ knowledge. You are then apparently an ‘author’, as his supporters (and him) are saying. It’s spivvery of the highest order, a get rich quick scam that sails about as close to the wind of illegality as you can get without tripping into it. Google does not like it.

This is what passes for business in today’s world. Once of a day, a Tory business man would often be an avuncular chap who ran a medium-sized engineering business in the West Midlands. Not anymore. And this is symptomatic of a wider malaise.

Richard Broughton

Brilliant Richard! And exactly right to my knowledge. To me he is an example of the worst kind of spiv, you cant call it business. He produces nothing but rips off other people's hard work. Your mythical West Midlands man was adding value, paying people to make widgets. Shapps produces no added value, he is a waste of space and as you say, typical of so many 'entrepreneurs' operating today. A good man to personify the ethos of the Tories.....
Later... More budget leaks this morning, whatever happened to omerta? I can remember when Hugh Dalton resigned in 1947 after he let slip one sentence to a reporter....

I was particularly amused by the BBC radio 2 live lunch time cover of George Osborne's budget. The first 3 minutes was a very up-beat assessment of the state of the economy and how well we were performing against other advanced countries. Some music was then faded in which just happened to be 'Hot Chocolate's "I believe in Miracles". I think someone was taking the Micky.

I listened to part of it P and the thing that struck me was that it wasn't a financial report and indication of policy and the thinking behind it but a triumph of the script writer/spin doctor's art. We know it's politics but this was pure electioneering. All to be expected I suppose but we are in a time of financial crisis still and in this case politics was given precedence over the needs of the country. All the commentators agree that his figures for the projected reduction of the deficit do not add up because his 'savings' are not possible, he will have to bear down even harder on public service cuts with inevitable consequences to essential services, think police, NHS, Ambulance service, education and local authority funding with all that implies.
There are two options, straight austerity driven by Tory DNA to shrink the state and massage the upper echelons or well directed borrowing at incredibly low rates to improve domestic spend, relieve poverty and inject demand and productivity into the economy. These latter policies are the only ones that will work in the long term because they expand, rather than shrink to domestic economy, the biggest contributor to demand and overall economic activity.
Fine performance, lousy economics and governance.

A lot of comment on the budget by the IFS (Institute of Fiscal Studies) A professed independent think tank that gets its core funding from the Economic and Social Research Council who gets most of its funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Which is a ministerial department of the United Kingdom Government. Headed by The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP Secretary of State. President of the Board of Trade Overall responsibility, business and banking. Rather an odd funding stream to be considered truly independent. But there again I could be wrong. He who pays the piper etc:.

P. I am funded by the government..... But there is such a thing as integrity and honesty. Time will tell.... Osborne is desperate to avoid comparisons with 1930 levels of public service funding but I'm afraid it won't be far from the truth if the Tories hold power.... It could be a rough ride!
Meanwhile, have a look at THIS for a report of the failure of the £154million online system that DEFRA have been defending for months. They say they can make the payments on time using old-fashioned paper forms. Really? I wonder what it will cost to get enough temporary workers in to handle this.

The Post office have sacked the consultants they set on to report on their defective IT system and ordered them to return or destroy all the research evidence. They knew it was going to find against them. This has leaked and MPs are demanding that Vince Cable intervene... Not a lot of confidence in that route!
See THIS for a report of the fall from grace of one of the Tory candidates. He appears to have allowed overweening ambition to trump common sense and ethics.

Stanley wrote: He appears to have allowed overweening ambition to trump common sense and ethics.

This is a ploy not limited to individuals. Ramp up some bad news that really doesn't warrant it and when people get all worked up and start asking what can be done come in with your masterplan that you have been working on for years. Sounds familiar, just think NHS. >>> solution privatization, Economy National? debt >>> solution austerity.