Lies, Damned Lies and Tories

The escalating coverage of the Tory party kerfuffle about an in/out referendum rarely mentions what lies behind all this. Iain MacWhirter, writing in the Sunday Herald put his finger on it: 

“The EU is in the process of constructing a fiscal and banking union because of the eurozone crisis. Europe's central bankers have concluded the only way to stop any recurrence of financial turmoil is to create a central European treasury with powers to regulate banks and to issue bonds backed by the EU rather than simply member states. This would stop borrowing costs rising unsustainably as they did in Greece and Spain last year.

To finance all this and police the banks, the EU wants to cap bankers' bonuses and introduce a financial transactions tax on banks' activities. This money would go into an insurance fund to guarantee a future bailout is paid for by banks, not taxpayers. Many regard these measures as the very least needed to get banking back onto a stable and socially-responsible footing.

But the City of London's bankers are fiercely opposed to the tax. They don't want to lose their bonuses either. They say financial services is one of Britain's biggest earners and Europe simply wants to cut British finance down to size.”12/5/13

So there it is in a nutshell. The Tories are acting on behalf of their paymasters. The City pay over 70% of the Tories funds. Many Ministers and Tory MPs have a financial background or still work in the City. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The City are telling the Tories its payback time. Bonuses are at risk. The good of the nation can go hang. There are bonuses at risk. UKIP are a useful lever. Bonuses are at risk!

Anything and everything the Tories say on the European issue must be treated with the utmost scepticism. They are  a bunch of unscrupulous liars and spivs who put their self-interest before the interests of the nation.

Lies, Damned Lies and Tory Ministers

Duncan Smith

When Iain Duncan Jokeshop quoted 8,000 jobless being helped by his latest wheeze he was making it up. He has had his knuckles rapped for telling porkies by the Office for National Statistics. 

“Duncan Smith's belief that the welfare state holds down the very people it is meant to serve is pleasing to Conservative ears. To maintain his supporters' illusions, he has to lie. Last week, the UK Statistics Authority gave him a reprimand that broke from the genteel language of the civil service. The work and pensions secretary had claimed that his department's cap on benefits was turning scroungers into strivers – even before it had come into force. "Already we have seen 8,000 people who would have been affected by the cap move into jobs." How sweet those words must have sounded to Conservative ears. The government was forcing the feckless to stop sponging off hard-working taxpayers. (Taxpayers are always "hard working" in British politics, in case you haven't noticed. We never try to get by doing the bare minimum.)

The figures did not show that, the statistics authority said. More to the point, they could not possibly have shown that. Duncan Smith's claims were “unsupported” by the very statistics his department had collected.

If this were a one-off, I would say Duncan Smith "misspoke" or "lacked judgment" or, in plain English, that he was an idiot. If every politician who spun statistics were damned, after all, parliament would be empty. I would use stronger language; indeed,Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the statistics authority, is thinking about sending his inspectors into the Department for Work and Pensions because Duncan Smith is a habitual manipulator.

As journalists know, Duncan Smith's modus operandi is well established. His "people" – all of them scroungers, not strivers, who sponge off the taxpayer from their Whitehall offices – brief reporters with unpublished figures. The Tory press uses them, and, as the Financial Times explained, when his spin doctors meet an honest journalist, who asks hard questions, they end the call and never ring back. By the time the true figures appear on the DWP Website , and informed commentators can see the falsity, the spin, the old saying applies: "A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on."

Before the benefit cap, it was the work programme, which is meant to provide training for the unemployed. The statistics authority criticised the "coherence" of Duncan Smith's statistics and, once again, the manner in which his department presented them to the public. Far from being a success, the programme found work for a mere 8.6% of the desperate people who went on it. Meanwhile, Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, has convincingly demonstrated that the Tory claim that "more than a third of people who were on incapacity benefit dropped their claims rather than complete a medical assessment" is false and demonstrably false.” Nick Cohen, Observer 12/5/13

Gove

The latest to find his claims hold less water than a colander is the disgraceful Gove, who made the following claim in the Sunday Wail. “"Survey after survey has revealed disturbing historical ignorance, with one teenager in five believing Winston Churchill was a fictional character while 58% think Sherlock Holmes was real."

This disturbed a retired teacher so much she used the Freedom of Information Act to contact the Department for Education to establish which surveys he had used. One was from a Premier Inn survey who were pushing local history to boost usage of their hotels. Another was from UKTV Gold in 2008.

“None of the pieces included links to the original research, and none of the articles cited stated whether the research was commissioned by professional polling companies, or met the standards of the British Polling Council.

The current history curriculum for 11- to 14-year-olds states students should learn to "evaluate the sources used in order to reach reasoned conclusions", while the draft curriculum for history from 2014 notes students should "understand how evidence is used rigorously to make historical claims".

Dozens of people have taken to Twitter to criticise the sourcing for Gove's claims as weak, including the poet and former children's laureate Michael Rosen,who tweeted: "When Gove said: 'Survey after survey' showed teenagers' historical ignorance he meant to say: 'I'm making this up.'" Guardian online 13/5/13

Ferguson the best manager ever?

Judging by the fuss and all the extra newsprint, a person could be forgiven for thinking the Messiah had just left the building. However, among all the hagiography there were odd revelations which cast a dark shadow on the mass grovel.

The Hair Dryer

This aspect of his character was reminisced about in a very forgiving and humerous series of interviews. Victims of ‘the treatment’ along with observers and commentators adopted an ‘ah well, what do you expect in the high-pressure world of football’ with reference made to when he had turned round the performance of his team in the second half. Hitting David Beckham with a football boot was mentioned in a similar vein. The man is a professional bully.

Banning journalists

Many people report that Ferguson is wonderfully helpful behind the scenes and with other managers. In his professional life he behaved more like a mafia boss. For instance it is not just his players who were belittled and shouted at. Any journalist who displeased him would receive a ban from Old Trafford. This did not just happen to the press. The BBC ran an expose of how his son was involved in very dodgy dealings acting as an agent for several United players. Ferguson refused to speak to the Beeb for seven years. And was allowed to get away with this. Several national papers were banned at times for writing things Ferguson did not like.  Press relations were carried out on the North Korean principle. All news whether written or said about United has to be better than rose-tinted - it has to be sanitised, and reflect only glory on United.

Compare this craven approach from those who collude with bullying with what happened in Italy.  Jose Mourinho banned a journalist when he was managing Inter Milan. At his very next press conference, as he began to speak all the massed ranks of journalists stood up and left the room. 

Listening to a profile of ‘Pep’ Guardiola, the brilliant ex-manager of Barcelona, it emerged that he did not believe in the hair dryer approach to player management. It was enough for a player to know that he had disappointed the manager for improvement to take place. For the record Barcelona embarrassed United each time they met in the European Champions League final. Although Manchester United have a great domestic record it has not translated into European Cup success. Yes they have won the Champions League twice and the Cup-Winners cup once but there are several pundits who believe they should have won more European titles to justify all the adulation. 

‘Fergie-Time’

Another aspect of the bullying is his effect on match officials - whenever United are losing, extra minutes are mysteriously added to the time allowed for injuries etc. Why does this happen? Most of his fines and touchline bans are for comments made about officials. He lets them know in no uncertain terms what he thinks of their decisions. It takes a brave official to award a penalty to United’s opposition. The FA have regularly ducked confronting him with the effect him and his players have on the lower reaches of the game. His players too reflect their managers approach to officials. The sight of his team ganging up on referees does little to encourage good behaviour in amateur and school football.

Role Model

Is Ferguson the best manager ever? The glowing tributes about his record ignore the dark side of his methods. Imagine a Head teacher treating colleagues to the Hair Dryer. Or a Personnel Manager? In fact anyone dealing with human beings on a daily basis. We are more aware of just how bad bullying can be for the victim. Thanks to the media coverage of Ferguson’s departure there will be a few more bullies who think it is ok to make their workers and colleagues lives a misery.

Thanks Fergie. For a strong labour supporter and union man that is quite a legacy.

MP’s Expenses

Oh no – they still haven’t got it

Twenty MPs pocket up to £180,000 each on taxpayer-funded second homes

Almost 20 ministers and MPs have pocketed up to £180,000 each after selling their taxpayer-funded second homes for a profit.

We have been assured that MPs have ‘learned their lesson” and that the expenses scandal is all behind them as they act with total probity and honesty. Well some of them may have done but there are others who continue to regard the House of Commons as a train full of gravy. 

“David Gauke, the Tory Exchequer Secretary, made a £67,000 profit from the sale of his flat in Kennington, south London, but has only been asked to repay £26,762.

His main home is in Chorleywood, Herts, which is a 45-minute commute to London. Mr Gauke bought his Kennington flat in 2007 for £285,000, and claimed more than £13,000 in mortgage interest between 2010 and 2012.

He sold the flat in August last year for £352,000. A spokesman said he had "abided by the rules" at all times. Mr Gauke previously said it was "morally wrong" to pay tradesmen cash-in-hand.” Torygraph 9/5/13

A picture of said Gauke in the paper was not exactly flattering. He resembled an enforcer in a criminal organisation. He clearly adjusts his morals to suit his bank balance. He is not alone.

“Martin Bell, the former MP who has campaigned for greater transparency, said that MPs should repay any profit they make on the properties.He said: "It's an open and shut case, of course they should pay it back. There is the spirit of the law, why are they making a personal profit from allowances which they receive from the taxpayer? In this case they very clearly are." However one MP said that as he was not required to pay the money back he would not be doing so. Another said that she had used the money to reduce the mortgage on her family home, while a third said he was investing his profit for his grandchildren.

A total of 29 MPs have been asked to repay profits made since 2010, under new rules that came into effect after the expenses scandal, according to figures published by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Only one of them, Stewart Jackson, a Conservative MP, refused to repay the money. He is now being sued by the expenses watchdog for the £54,000.” ibid

There has been a massive leak of tax avoidance details, “200 lorry-loads” according to the Guardian, which will have set some hearts a fluttering. As these were leaked in 2009, it seems there is a determined ongoing effort by our unscrupulous elite to suppress any news of this emerging into the light. How many of these identified will turn out to be very wealthy politicians? Cabinet Ministers even? And will we ever get to know?

It is ironic that the story was covered in the Guardian - who utilise offshore tax havens themselves.

Our Political Elite Assessed....

......and found wanting

Two writers from very different eras encapsulated what is wrong with our self-serving elite, whether they be politicians, bankers, hedge-fund managers, tax-avoiders or their mates in the media. 

A pithy paragraph by Suzanne Moore summed up the current political state of play yesterday. Her article was principally about UKIP and how their 'policie' are not the answer.

“But in order to respect the current political establishment I would have to think the Iraq war was a good idea; that these people are economically literate; that Afghanistan is going great (though producing higher opium yields than ever); that Trident is a fine investment, as are aircraft carriers with no aircraft; that to talk about decriminalisation of drugs is disgusting, even though doing just that has reduced heroin use in Portugal. I must also accept that Cameron recruits the best and the brightest, who just happen to be his schoolmates, and that education should be overhauled by a nostalgic zealot who has never taught and dismisses evidence.

All of this, of course, is propped up by the media establishment and the cliche of the Westminster bubble. I wish it were a bubble as it would take one prick to burst it. It is a pretty solid forcefield. I know there are some good people in politics who really want change. But then we see Tony Blair and his "vocation". He now has to be sneaked into the country, but, hey, he is worth £65m. Farage and his merry men could but dream of such respect.” Suzanne Moore, Guardian 9/5/13

In the same edition online, was a gem from 90 year old Harry Leslie Smith. He had served in the RAF during the Second World War and lost many friends and colleagues in the conflict. 

“We were a world at war, and for those of us in Britain the cost was enormous in lost and ruined lives. But it didn't matter because we believed that the cause was just and that, whether we came from humble or refined stock, we were all in this war together. It was that common and shared faith in ourselves and in the notion that everyone's contribution, large or small, was important to the war effort that saw us through those dark hours. It was what kept us buggering on until our fortunes turned and the war against Nazi Germany reached its bloody end in the spring of 1945.....

.....We have somehow broken our solemn bond with those warriors of yesterday and forgotten that when the survivors of the Second World War returned to their homes, they were like a tide that raised all boats. My generation's shared experience of suffering, of witnessing genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enduring unspeakable privations as both soldiers and civilians made us vigilant when it came to demanding our peace dividend. We knew what we deserved and that was a future that didn't resemble our hard-scrabble past. The Green and Pleasant land was for everyone after the war because we had bled for it and died for it. We demanded a truly democratic society where merit was rewarded and no one would be left behind because of poverty, poor health or an inadequate education....

.....Today, however, in a world where our reservoirs of wealth are as deep and enormous as all the mighty rivers of the world combined, our politicians, financial institutions and megalithic industries tell us we can no longer afford these human rights that men sacrificed their lives for: the freedom to live with dignity in a compassionate society. We are told by those in charge that we can no longer live with luxuries like healthcare, proper state funded pensions, decent wages, trade unions and most aspects of our social safety network.

At 90, I am too old to take up the fight, too old to stand in demonstrations with a placard denouncing this madness. All I can do is bear witness to my times and our heroic struggle fought so long ago against Hitler and against men who would wreck the foundations that made civilisation tolerable and decent for its inhabitants.

The problem with society, today, is not lack of money or debt but lack of ideas, lack of commitment by our government to realise that its constituents are the people, not city bankers and hedge fund managers whose loyalty is to their ledger books rather than to the community. I don't know if we will come out of this present darkness. Perhaps humanity will simply retreat into the caves whence our ancestors came because we were cowed by self-serving political parties and dubious leaders of business. I hope not, for the sake of the generations to come, but there is one thing I am certain of: had the politicians and business mandarins of today been in power in 1939, they wouldn't have had the bottle to fight Nazism. There would have been no Dunkirk, no Battle of Britain, no Finest Hour. Our leaders today on either side of the house would have allowed the lights across Europe to grow dim, because after all that would have been the cheapest and most prudent solution to Hitler's tyranny.” ‘Is Cameron’s Britain what we fought for in the war?’

3D Plastic Guns

The possibility of creating 3 dimensional objects with a glorified printer is astonishing enough. Really. Deeply astonishing. The news that the invention has been used to create – and fire – a plastic gun stretches credulity beyond amazement to despair. Why oh why do we have to devote so much time, resources and ingenuity to thinking up fresh ways to kill each other? 

Discussing this with the local postmaster, who has political ambitions on the right of the spectrum, it became clear that on this issue there are people in the UK who make the Tea Party look tame. He was firmly of the belief that every citizen in this country should be able to bear arms; further that an armed citizenry would act as a check on ‘Big Government.’ It is odd that many on the right are not keen on ‘Big Government,’ until it comes to bailing out banks and financial institutions.

Thanks to the internet it is possible for anyone so inclined to spout nonsensical arguments,   however such arguments serve to provoke further research. “Armed teachers would have prevented a Columbine style massacre” and “that guns keep people safe.” Collateral damage does not enter the equation.

It is not too difficult to refute the pro-gun propaganda – in the UK, Europe, and the rational world – but seemingly impossible in the good ole U S of Eh! 

Try these stats:

• In 2010, 19,392 people killed themselves in the United States in ‘firearms related suicides.’ 
• In the same year there were 14,078 firearm homicides - the great majority of them by handguns. 
• There are over 310 million weapons in the United States for a population of 305 million. 
• This excludes any weapons held by the military.
• In the US in 2005 the average rate for gun related deaths per 100,000 citizens was 6.1.
• In the UK the figure is 0.07 per 100,000.
• In US cities the rate is 12.1 per 100,000 with Washington DC having the highest rate at 35.2.
• Canada has a range of gun control laws which they strengthened. They reduced their gun-related homicide rate from 1.15 per 100,000 to 0.5 between 1977 and 2012. 
• This refutes the argument from the pro gun lobby that most gun crime occurs in States or Countries with strict gun control. 

The thought of the BNP and the Anti-Nazi League meeting up in Bradford or Leeds with both parties armed to the teeth does not bear thinking about. Yet that is what our aspiring tyro politician seems to think would keep both parties safe.....

As for plastic guns created by warped geniuses.....Why? And having the instructions for making the guns available online? There are a few thousand more positive items which could benefit mankind ahead in the queue –– aren’t there?

Michael Rosen’s letter to Gove

The following appeared in the Guardian Education section yesterday.

“In a few years' time, my eight-year-old will have to sit your spelling, punctuation and grammar (Spag) test and my 12-year-old will sit your new exams at 16. My oldest children, now adults, often asked me why they had to study a particular part of a course. I always did my best to think of a good reason so that they didn't feel that they were wasting their time. With these younger two, I'm going to be hard pushed to keep these explanations coming, and to tell the truth, I think you and your colleagues have had the same problem.

Starting with the Spag test: very few people seem to know about the extraordinary conjuring trick that produced this exam, though I guess you can't believe your luck at how easy it was to impose such a piece of hocus-pocus. I'll run through it: you set up a committee under the auspices of Lord Bew to look into assessment and accountability. In April 2011, the committee produced an interim report which was well researched and well referenced, drawing particularly on the work of Prof Dylan William. In June 2011, the committee produced its final report with most of the interim report intact, but there was now appended a brand new section, which proposed that at key stage 2 there should be tests in spelling, punctuation and grammar. The justification given was that questions in these areas have "right and wrong answers". This new section contained no references, no evidence, no accounts of research. It was just a bald assertion.

It was also completely wrong. So, for spelling, many children read American texts, which are right but "wrong". In my lifetime, several so-called rules about the placing of commas have been revised so that what was wrong slowly became right without anyone saying it was. In grammar, there is lively disagreement among linguists about terminology and the functions of words in the context of real writing and speech. Sometimes children are given competing terms for when they're writing: eg "connectives", which, when they're doing grammar, they will have to unlearn and call conjunctions or adverbs. The assertion about right and wrong answers must have been plucked from mid-air, sagely agreed and passed unanimously in ignorance.

However, far from you rejecting this peculiar brainstorm, you went straight ahead and "accepted the recommendation" that Lord Bew's committee had come up with.

Now, you and I know why there were no references and no evidence cited in this part of the report: no one could find any. There is no evidence that teaching 10- and 11-year-old children the kind of grammar questions that they will face in next week's Spag test will help them to do anything better. The reasons are obvious: the work involved is highly abstract; talking about bits of grammar separately from the children's reading, speaking and writing is almost meaningless.

It's not just me saying this. Two of your own advisers, Ruth Miskin, who has been such a stalwart supporter of some of your other ideas, and grammar expert Prof Debra Myhill, of Exeter University, have told you that too. If you think you can claim precedent from your favourite era, the 1950s, I can tell you that this Spag-style grammar wasn't introduced until we went to secondary school and then it was restricted to the 20% or so of pupils at grammar schools.

With GCSE English, we're still at the draft stage, but we can already see that there is a pincer movement going on. A narrowing of the subjects that are to be used in the evaluation of a school's performance will hit schools from one side, and a drastic reorganisation of the exam itself will hit them from the other. Subjects such as drama and media studies, which build on the language and culture that the students are immersed in, will count for nothing in the league tables. In English, speaking and listening have been eliminated from the fixing of the final grade. The argument that over-generous teacher assessment was disguising poor writing skills could be overcome by following the old system of marking foreign-language O-levels: a double-grade, one for written, one for oral.

If I were generous of mind, I would think that all this has come about by coincidence and oversight, but I'm a highly suspicious parent, so I suspect that you have introduced these reforms in order to simplify the process of failing more of our children. You have manipulated the Department for Education so that it serves ever more tightly the demands of a low-wage economy. Pumping out an increasing number of young people with "failed" written on their CVs will certainly contribute to the honourable job of keeping people poor.

Yours, 

Michael Rosen”