Be Excellent To Each Other

Ahhh cheers, that's quite interesting then. As I was reading the article I did think it seemed wantonly vicious and anti-general population, even for the Tories.

Doubtless it's more stuff to go on Cavey's list of 'pure, unadulterated, hysterical nonsense' as befits an 'unthinking, morosely aggressive and above all frankly tiresome Labour and uber Socialist drone' such as myself

Without going into all my technical issues with the failings of how the article describes the legislation, the key point that monbiot almost certainly intentionally ignores (as opposed to not being aware of) is that it was legislation first proposed by Gordon brown, refined for introduction by darling, and passed by the Tories with more anti tax avoidance protections than the original contained.

So worse than pure unadulterated anti Tory hysteria. It is intentionally misleading.

That wouldn't surprise me, I'm no apologist for the travesty that was (and arguably still is) 'new Labour'.



Naughty George! I still like his articles in the main though, even if he was off-target with this one. And Polly Toynbee, she's good as well.

And not that the Tory press are averse to a bit of 'anti-anything a bit lefty' hysteria, of course

For the record, I'm as anti 'Intentionally misleading' for parties of any color regardless of my own allegiancies. I don't like any form of cheapening of the debate from whatever angle.

From the House of Commons, 21 November (Hansard link)



I don't even think he has even thought about what he is saying! Oh dear.

Record numbers of working families in poverty due to low-paid jobs | Society | The Guardian



Sure am glad we've had an economic recovery.

For me, it's the whole psychology of the thing that's the most interesting aspect here; why write, less still post, a piece that doesn't even withstand the most basic scrutiny; is intentionally misleading and as such, nothing more than piss-poor, rather embarrassing propaganda?

As you say then, far worse than mere anti-Tory hysteria. I mean, just how desperate does one have to be to carry on clinging to the dead, stinking corpse of a demonstrably failed ideology, even purposely trying to mislead and misinform others as well as yourself, rather than facing up to reality? What chance any such person bringing something constructive to this discussion and/or having an actual debate?

Of course, it's this latter point that I was (rather clumsily) trying to explain to Wookie before. I'm not necessarily trying to be 'elitist' when I say that I wish a few usual suspects would keep out of this thread, merely that these characters can simply never, ever be 'reprogrammed' by facts or argument, no matter how compelling or persuasive? They have their life-long held political narrative, mantra and beliefs, and that's that - period. The analogy I'd draw is that of die-hard football supporters or even a cult?

There are many left wing contributors here like Curio, Peter St John etc. who bring quality discussion and debate to the table, without resorting to misinformation, getting personal about whether X or Y have 'flounced' and/or accusing their opponent of 'pressing their buttons' (even when they're speaking to someone else entirely), and/or just plain old sputtering ire. Let's have a cerebral, quality political discussion for grownups.

There was a piece in The Telegraph the other week about this, (and of course The Torygraph is no left-wing thinktank ), saying how Osborne's going to miss all his deficit reduction targets, how most people don't feel in the slightest that the economy's recovered (hence the Tories continuing to struggle in the polls when they should be on an economic poll bounce), tax receipts are struggling because so many workers are on low-pay/zero hours and technically in poverty, there'll be nothing to offer tax cuts with etc.

An economic recovery is no such thing when it's just a few at the top making out like bandits, whilst everyone else has to make do with declining wages in real terms, terrible underemployment and zero job security, and taking any old shit they get offered.

When Pizza Hut are able to pick and choose from graduate job applicants, something's gone wrong.

Me too.
Still having one too, very much against the grain and in stark comparison to the Euro Zone and even the G7.

Cripes, even The Guardian thinks so.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... owth-slows



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831

So much, then, for the "austerity will be teh disaster for the UK and can never engender economic growth and/or a way out of the shit we were in" brigade, eh Doc?

(See also: pointing out, yet again, that a complete government or economy, in its absolute entirety, isn't perfect <> proving any point whatsoever, least of all something, you know, relevant to the discussion. _No_one_is_arguing_this_ )

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 11910.html

The contempt with which this government treats the disabled is beyond words. What sort of a vile, callous, lowlife absolute piece of fucking shit would you need to be to invent a scheme like that to save some money?

Working within government, I can almost guarantee you that policy itself probably isn't too bad, it's the civil servants who interpret it and either run it themselves or farm it out to shitty companies without doing any real due diligence, that are the problem. You have no idea quite how imbecilic a lot of them are.

Unfortunately, the civil servants stay the same regardless of the government they work under. Nothing will change there no matter how you vote.

Yeah, clearly the government intended to raise disability benefits but stupid civil servants done got it all backwards. No, I'd take some convincing that anyone in government really gives much of a shit about any effects of their "difficult decisions" beyond counting the beans and minimising losses due to malfunctioning and unviable economic units such as ill people.

That article does seem to be atos being cunts rather than the policy behind it.

Hiring a private company to do their dirty work doesn't absolve them of any responsibility at all. The government hired them, the buck tops there. There have been far too many well-publicised cases of intolerable cruelty doled out by this bunch of psychopaths.

Agreed. You want to hire a third party to administer the assessment process? Knock your socks off. You have an obligation, however, to provide oversight to ensure that those most vulnerable in society aren't made to suffer as a result. For a start this sort of thing should fall under the purview of the health ministry, not the DWP. If you tell ATOS they're doing a good job if claimant numbers and totals fall, what do you expect they're going to do?

Outsourcing requires reliable metrics to validate its effectiveness. If cost is the only metric, this shit happens. There needs to be a way of ensuring that the most vulnerable aren't out through hell to get the support they need.

My point was, the "government" didn't hire them. Civil servants hired them. Those civil servants don't change between elections.

While I take that point, someone at the ministerial level is seeing all the press about the fucking horrendous decisions ATOS are making, and taking no action. I have no issue with ATOS being hired, I have an issue with the lack of oversight.

Aye, that's a fair assessment.

I'm assuming you have seen yes minister? It's surprisingly accurate when it comes to who actually runs the show and makes the decisions. Short of sacking the individuals involved, the power the minister has over changing behaviour is shockingly low.

We have a guy at work who was given thousands in grants from the job centre to get him back to work, they paid for an Ipad, specialist chairs and other equipment to allow him to work at our place. I'm not 100% sure what his condition is but its like a very bad RSI.

So there does look to be some sensible schemes out there, as usual those who aren't in the know will be treated like shit by process monkeys who aren't qualified to asses a condition, its rather shocking that somebody with a illness like Parkinson's who would have to been signed off long term by a GP or specialist can now have this cancelled by a nurse.

My old boss works for ATOS in their IT outsourcing, he has to go and make the sales pitch a reality after the outsourcing contracts have been signed. He said the sales guys promise all sorts of stuff to get the signature and there is seldom any contact with him to check its possible before hand.

Well that's pretty true of any company that ever bids for IT contracts.

Obligatory vid:

Ours is a nightmare at work, its in India but not outsourced, we have a number of employees who just get external contractors from anywhere (job adds, other providers) to do the work.

Worst part is that it reports into our CIO so nobody dare criticise it, he is a pretty decent guy but walks around thinking its the best thing ever as all the ass kissers that report to him are too scared to say otherwise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30327717



The IFS is generally politically neutral, having attracted criticism from both sides of the spectrum. It is no left-wing organisation. Covering the same story, the right-leaning Telegraph went so far as to use the quote 'gruesome' in its headline:

Its really time we sorted out tax in the UK. Starting with big corporations. If you look at Ireland not only is it cheaper its a lot simpler as well. The UK has so many rates and bands.

I have IT contractors working for me who send their money through shell companies with complex loan arrangements. The end result is they get 85% or more of gross salary. There is little chance the government sees any remaining 15% as I suspect the people running the scheme take that.

I've all for contractors being tax efficient as these guys don't get holidays, pensions etc like the full time people. But what they are doing is opting out of paying anything even NI. I don't think that is right, if you earn a decent living you should pay in. How its wasted\spent by those in power is another longer discussion.

This country just appears incapable of shutting schemes like this down quickly, its always appeals that drag on, in the meantime another one pops up as there just look to be so many loopholes.

I also have doubts that the Revenue is efficient enough to collect tax from those willing to pay it either!

This is the same Ireland that ran out of money in 2010, right?

It's interesting (to me at least) that the government want to devolve corporation tax to Northern Ireland but not to Scotland. I assume it's to allow it to better compete with the republic.

Yes the same one that got what 8-10 Billion bail out from the UK alone and now they poach all the blue chips tax money!

Yet you're looking to them as a model of fiscal policy.

Also, since when has simpler tax been attractive to large corporates? I have a fair inkling that big companies have well paid tax lawyers that don't particularly struggle with this shit.

Ireland would have been more fucked without 10% (now 12.5%) tax. Think about it, all its domestic businesses were making losses so the home tax base was nil regardless of the rate. Therefore the only material corporate tax receipts from 2008 to present come from businesses that are "there" (not really there) for the low tax rate.

If they'd jacked up the rate to help fill the gap they'd have all left overnight which is why the EU reluctantly removed it from their list of bailout demands.

I do find the tax system a bit odd. A contractor can be payed twice or more than myself yet pay less tax. Granted he doesn't get the benefits of leave and a pension but he gets paid a vast amount more.

Also I imaging many plumbers and builders get the same benefits and get paid cash in hand also.


I know its not all like that and there are reasons for taking this approach for some self employed people but when I know people earning way more and paying less tax it annoys me a little.

It annoys me when Lewis Hamilton parades around with a Union Flag and owns a bulldog and stuff like that when he says he has no intention of leaving tax exile.

Not at all, my point was that that they are cheaper rate wise and the bands look to be a lot simpler so little wonder all the blue chips pretended all there income is generated in Ireland whilst having huge presence and people in the UK.

The Big Society's Economic Boom, as expressed through the medium of foodback usage:



Shameful. Almost a million people relying on charity to not go hungry. The government's response? "The initial Conservative reaction to leaks of the report – which is formally published today – was hostile, with one minister claiming the increased use of food banks was due to greater publicity about their existence." Right. People only go to food banks because they know they exist.

It's clearly the fault of the foodbanks for existing. If they weren't there then the greedy poor would have to buy their food instead of getting it for free and spending all their massive state handouts on fags and tattoos.

It's OK, though, because employment is at a record high; ignore the man behind the curtain waving the zero-hour contract with below-poverty-level pay rates. That man doesn't exist.

Do you really think that people go to food banks just to get free food they don't need?

Fuck me, learn to recognise sarcasm dude.

To be fair there are plenty of people saying exactly that with no sarcasm intended.

How many of them are short Welsh social justice warriors?

Question time bun fight with Farage and Brand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2RSKJC-ugk

A disabled guy shut Brand down telling him he should stand for parliament.

a) I think there's some merit to the idea that foodbank usage has gone up due to publicity. I basically had no idea they existed in this country until recently. (Could I have used them in 2007 as a student? I remember having a single bag of rice for a week once...).

b) I don't think someone offering "advice" or criticism of the current political situation should have to stand for Parliament. If anything that's the opposite of what they should do. To stand for parliament you have to give a shit about a local constituency. If you ignore them then you're just as bad as the people you're complaining about.

There's chicken and egg to this. If the number of foodbanks had stayed at 2005 levels, then there is no way that the number of people using them in 2013 could possibly have used them. So yes, to a degree, I agree. Of course people don't setup food banks for shits and giggles without a need (although, I am aware of one company making profits out of servicing them).

I'm actually slightly surprised that Cameron hasn't seized on the increased use and number of Foodbanks as a shining example of the Big Society that he aimed for at work.

Yes, it's horrible that people cannot afford to eat, and that state benefits might or might not be sufficient to cover even this essential. However, we shouldn't be too ashamed that civil society has stepped into the breach. Whether it should or not is a seperate political question, but I don't think we should criticise the existence of such charity, but only the necessity of it.

It comes down to the old canard about whether increased supply increases demand, which I've never been convinced by (particularly if the existing suppy is not being overrun with demand - I don't believe foodbanks in 2005 were turning people away because they had too many clients). And, as you say, it's not as if most of these have been set up for a laugh.

Also, living off one bag of rice for a week is part of being a student, Pod. It's character building.

One bag of rice? Luxury!

..........................................

..........................................