7 days to go - In which we look at more of David's broken promises

30/04/15

Dear Claire,

Here is the third part (of three) of what Cameron promised in his ‘Contract between the Conservative party and you’, issued before the 2010 election.

I put the contents of the initial letter from Cameron in my letter of the 25^th. We’ll just remind ourselves of the closing line from that letter:

“So this is our contract with you. I want you to read it and – if we win the election – use it to hold us to account. If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.”

I must, once again, thank Thomas G Clark and his excellent blog ‘Another Angry Voice’.

The third of these three parts addressed society.

“We will change society”

“We face big social problems in the country: family breakdown, educational failure, crime and deep poverty. Labour’s big government has failed; we will help build a Big Society where everyone plays their part in mending our broken society”

 “If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:

1.      “Increase spending on health every year, while cutting waste in the NHS, so that more goes to nurses and doctors on the frontline, and make sure you get access to the cancer drugs you need”

Despite a lot of ‘smoke and mirrors’, Jeremy Hunt was forced to admit in 2012 that spending on the NHS had been decreased since the coalition came to government. 4,000 senior nurses have been sacked since 2010 and frontline staff have had either zero or a derisory 1% increase in their salaries.

2.      “Support families, by giving married couples and civil partners a tax break, giving more people the right to request flexible working and helping young families with extra Sure Start health visitors”

Sure Start funding has been ruthlessly slashed, resulting in the closure of some 600 Sure Start centres. The married couple’s tax break is a fraction of the financial losses due to the longest real terms decline in wages since records began.

3.      “Raise standards in schools, by giving teachers the power to restore discipline and by giving parents, charities and voluntary groups the power to start new smaller schools.”

The restoring discipline part is rhetoric. The other stuff about creating schools allows £billions worth of public property to be given away to unaccountable private sector pseudo-charities.

4.      “Increase the basic state pension, by re-linking it to earnings, and protect the winter fuel allowance, free TV licence, free bus travel and other key benefits for older people.” 

The link to earnings has been put in place, but given that earnings have undergone the longest real terms decline since records began, that’s not of much benefit. The winter fuel allowance was cut in 2011.  

5.      “Fight back against crime, cut paperwork to get police officers on the street, and make sure criminals serve the sentence given to them in court”

34,000 police jobs have been cut since 2010. Slashing the number of working police is an odd way to “get police officers on the street”. There have been no reforms in sentencing at all.

6.      “Create National Citizen Service for every 16 year old, to help bring the country together”

National Service for every 16 year old is typical right-wing ideology. Well, we’re able to say that of the 16 promises made in this document (6 today, 5 on the 28^th and 5 on the 26^th April), the last broken promise is one that nobody would have wanted anyway.

That’s three sections of broken promises. A shockingly inept and incompetent performance. Cameron is claiming that the Tories need five more years to finish off the job they started. Would that amount to another five years of broken promises?

How can anyone believe a word Cameron, or any Tory candidate says? You’re all making promises which won’t come to fruition. It’s a big con. We’re doing what we can to ensure as many people understand this.

Kind regards

Polly

8 days to go - In which we encounter the mystery of the missing Tory!

29/04/15

Dear Claire,

I was going to write about the third part of what Dave Snooty (© Private Eye) promised in his ‘Contract between the Conservative party and you’, issued before the 2010 election: ‘We will change society’. That will wait for another day, because today I’d like to talk about the disappearing Conservatives!

In the ‘Contract between the Conservative party and you’, Cameron wrote “So this is our contract with you. I want you to read it and – if we win the election – use it to hold us to account. If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.”

Well, it would seem that quite a few of the electorate WOULD like to hold the Tories to account. The problem is, the Tories aren’t making themselves available such that they may be held to account.

First off, Le Grand Fromage himself ensured that two candidates standing in Witney were excluded from the only hustings meeting he was able to attend. An independent candidate, Christopher Tompson, and Dr Clive Peedell of the National Health Action party. Do you think Dr Peedell (a clinical oncologist) might just know what it’s like at the sharp end of the NHS, and might be well-placed to tear Cameron apart over his ongoing destruction of the NHS?

Of course Cameron’s refusal to debate head-to-head with Miliband set the precedent for his cowardly avoidance of any situation in which he would be held to account, as well as being made to look like a complete idiot, who has presided over so many failed and inhumane policies and undelivered promises.

A little closer to home, you yourself avoided the Green hustings meeting at Pewsey, having committed to attending it some six months previously. The organisers pressed you as to why you refused to attend, and you said you needed to be ‘elsewhere’ without any further explanation. Could it be that your rough ride at the Pewsey hustings meeting the week before scared you off? Could it be that Cameron’s failure to deliver on any green policies (quote to aides, from Cameron: “Cut the green crap out”) meant you would have been held to account? Perish the thought!

Heading north to Merseyside, we find the very lovely Esther McVie ducking out of a pre-scheduled interview with LBC radio, who visited the area with their mobile bus/studio on their current round-Britain tour.  It seems that McVie’s agent didn’t even know where she was, and got very flustered when pressed. I wonder if there was going to be anything vaguely uncomfortable in the LBC interview, possibly concerning Welfare reforms.

Andrew Marr’s interview with Cameron on Sunday 19^th April, in which the death of a claimant was raised, appears to have got the Conservative party spooked when it comes to talking about their record on benefits.

A disdainful Cameron showed no humanity or remorse when quizzed by Marr about diabetic former soldier David Clapson, who died after his benefits were sanctioned. Clapson was unable to keep his insulin at the correct temperature in the fridge and died, his dead body surrounded by piles of CVs he’d printed off.

Perhaps the experience may have convinced the Conservatives that this isn’t their strongest subject.

On Tuesday 21^st April, Tory minister for disabled people Mark Harper cancelled an appearance on Newsnight. He had been due to take part in a three party debate on benefits. Because Harper dropped out just two hours before the programme was due to be broadcast live, the BBC cancelled the two other politicians in the interests of impartiality. As a result the BBC had to draft in non-politicians to talk on the same subject.

Well, I’ve saved the best till last today: Yup, it’s Irritating Duncan Syndrome, the old arse-ache himself.

On Monday 27^th, IBS was supposed to be appearing at a hustings meeting in his own constituency, Chingford.  He dropped out at the very last minute, claiming that he’d been called to the north of the country urgently.

Could it possibly have been because the sister of David Clapson, the soldier mentioned above, was at the same meeting, and wanted to question IBS about his Welfare cuts?

Iain Duncan Smith is due to appear for a debate about benefits on Andrew Neil’s daily politics show at 2pm on Tuesday 5th May. He will be appearing on a panel with Labour’s Rachel Reeves , Lib Dem Steve Webb, Suzanne Evans of UKIP and Jonathan Bartley for the Greens.

At least, that’s the plan. But the Conservatives appear increasingly desperate not to talk about either their record on benefits or their plans to cut another £12 billion from social security in just two years.

Could it be that Andrew Neil and Alison Holt may yet be talking amongst themselves two days before the election?

The mystery of the disappearing Tories: the plot thickens!

Kind regards

Polly

9 days to go - In which Dave's plans for the economy didn't quite work out

28/04/15

Dear Claire,

Here is part two (of three) of what Cameron promised in his ‘Contract between the Conservative party and you’, issued before the 2010 election.

I put the contents of the initial letter from Cameron in my letter of the 25^th. We’ll just remind ourselves of the closing line from that letter:

“So this is our contract with you. I want you to read it and – if we win the election – use it to hold us to account. If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.”

I must, once again, thank Thomas G Clark and his excellent blog ‘Another Angry Voice’.

The second of three parts addressed  the economy.

“We will change the economy”

“Gordon Brown’s economic incompetence has doubled the national debt, given us record youth unemployment and widened the gap between rich and poor. Unemployment is still rising and this year we will spend more on debt interest than on schools. We need to get our economy moving

“If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:

1.      “Cut wasteful public spending”

The cuts that were implemented included things such as cutting spending on flood defences, for places which were badly flooded. The misguided cuts implemented by Osborne caused the ‘double-dip’ recession. Let’s not forget the first recession was not caused by the previous government. The global banking crisis led to that; the Tories just ensured that it happened again.

2.      “Act now on the national debt”

Despite their promises that ideological austerity would have completely wiped out the budget deficit by now, the government is still borrowing £billions every month. Cameron’s government has now created more debt than all of the Labour governments in history combined!

3.      “Reduce emissions and build a greener economy”

After pretending that they would be the ‘greenest government ever’, Cameron soon U-turned. He cut spending on green energy infrastructure and research. He began promoting fracking and even instructed his aides to ‘cut out all the green crap’.

4.      “Get Britain working by giving unemployed people support to get to work” 

 

Where to start on this one? They haven’t cut benefits for those ‘who refuse to work’, they have slashed the in-work benefits used to top up the poverty wages paid by their corporate backers. The apprenticeships policies are pretty much forced unpaid labour schemes.  

5.       “Control immigration”

Without reforming EU Freedom of Movement legislation, this was always a completely impossible promise. Net immigration rose39% to 243,000 in 2013-14. To give Cameron one tiny bit of credit, he has admitted “We got it wrong” on immigration. What a shame he cannot own up to all his other abject failures.

OK, that’s the second of the three sections of broken promises. We’ll look at Society over the next few days.

A pretty shabby performance all round. If I were to have an appraisal or performance review for a job I was currently doing which reflected such a dire performance on previously stated objectives, I know I’d be out of the door with my P45 without my feet touching the ground. Once again: a damning report on Tory failures.

Kind regards

Polly

10 days to go - In which we consider the first of three lists of promises at which the Tories have failed

2704/15

Dear Claire,

As promised, we’re going to look at what Cameron promised in his ‘Contract between the Conservative party and you’, issued before the 2010 election.

I put the contents of the initial letter from Cameron in my letter of the 25^th. We’ll just remind ourselves of the closing line from that letter:

“So this is our contract with you. I want you to read it and – if we win the election – use it to hold us to account. If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.”

Today we’re going to look at the first of three parts in this contract. This addresses the things Cameron promised about Politics.

“We will change Politics”

“Our political system needs to change. Politicians must be made more accountable, and we must take power away from Westminster and put it in the hands of the people – individuals, families and neighbourhoods

“If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:

1.      “Give you the right to sack your MP, so you don’t have to wait for an election to get rid of politicians who are guilty of misconduct.”

The ‘Right to recall’ corrupt MPs has still not been delivered, and the proposals are watered-down, meaning that the final say on whether recall proceedings go ahead will lie with MPs and other members of the political class.

2.      “Cut the number of MPs by ten percent and cut the subsidies and perks for politicians.”

The cut in MPs hasn’t materialised, and the £103million claimed in expenses in 2014 is higher than was claimed in 2009, at the height of the MPs’ expenses scandal. There has been little sign of any cutting back in the way of perks, as witnessed by the obscene profits made, and kept, by Osborne on his two properties, the mortgage interest payments of which were met by the tax-payer.

3.      “Cut ministers’ pay by five per cent and freeze it for five years.”

 Well, partially delivered. The cut was made, after which the decision on pay rises was outsourced to an “independent” review body, who put pay up by 11%!

4.      “Give local communities the power to take charge of the local planning system and vote on excessive tax rises.”

Local government budgets have been slashed and the Tories are planning to limit judicial reviews massively. These judicial reviews are the only means left for local people to hold their elected representatives to account.

5.      “Make government transparent, publishing every item of government spending over £25,000, all government contracts, and all local council spending over £500.”

The Tories have fought to keep as much information private as possible. They have repeatedly refused to answer Freedom of Information requests, specifically over the number of deaths related to workfare and disability policy reviews. Iain Duncan Smith tried to prevent results from enquiries into his DWP reforms being published. Cameron has chickened out of a debate with Miliband, as well as chickening out of a hustings debate with someone running on a ‘Save our NHS’ ticket. Cabinet ministers routinely lie about what their departments are doing, subsequently being ticked off by the Office for National Statistics. If anything, the Tories have done what they can to hide things, rather than make them transparent.

OK, that’s the first of the three sections of broken promises. We’ll look at the Economy tomorrow and Society in the next few days.

I think you’ll agree, it’s not a brilliant performance is it? In terms of delivering on Tory promises, it’s a litany of incompetence and failed policies. Impressive!

Kind regards

Polly

11 days to go - In which there's democracy, and Tory party democracy, with a subtle twist!

26/04/15

Dear Claire,

Well, I was going to be writing about the promises made by Cameron in his “contract” prior to the 2010 election today. We’ll get to that tomorrow, but today I’d like to highlight some ridiculous, undemocratic stupidity from the big cheese himself.

In Cameron’s own constituency of Witney in Oxfordshire, he has attended one hustings meeting only. In Witney, there is a candidate standing for the National Health Action party, Dr Clive Peedell.

Dr Peedell, a consultant oncologist, has been invited to every hustings meeting except…..guess which one? Yup, the one which Cameron graced with his presence. Another candidate, Christopher Tompson, standing as an Independent candidate, was also turned away at the door, despite having been accepted as a candidate for this hustings meeting.

After months of fruitless wrangling over the televised leaders’ debates, David Cameron has been accused of dodging a less obviously risky encounter: a church debate with a doctor who is mounting a long-shot challenge for his seat in Oxfordshire.

So now, we come to the blame game: who excluded Dr Peedell from this meeting, held in a church in the constituency? Of course, Cameron’s team denies exerting any influence on the event beyond security matters. But in an email to a photographer who was also barred from attending, organisers explained that they were following “instructions … from Cameron’s office”.

Dr Peedell said “They’re just so worried about those past episodes with Blair and Brown and Major, the public getting involved.”

The debate was organised by Churches Together, an ecumenical organisation in the prime minister’s constituency. When Peedell contacted Churches Together to complain about his omission, the organisers replied they had “no idea” that he was running.

Despite emailing to point out his existence a fortnight before the 10 April event, and noting that his details appeared on the first result of a Google search for ‘Witney candidates 2015’ , Peedell was informed by Nick Hance, the church organisation’s vice-chair, that it was now “too late to include you”.

“I think Cameron dodged it,” said Peedell, who is campaigning for increased health funding and an end to the NHS internal market. “It’s clearly being stage-managed. They don’t want him to be challenged by people with expertise in a specialist area, especially the NHS.”

Duncan Enright, the Labour party candidate, described the tight control of the event as “The Mrs Duffy effect”, a reference to Gordon Brown’s unscripted encounter with a disgruntled member of the public during the 2010 election.

According to Hance, the only contact with the Conservatives “was to do with security implications so that they could mount the appropriate defence of David Cameron”. The strict controls on the event were not limited to the candidates, however. A photographer for the Oxford Mail, Damian Halliwell, said that he was made to leave the church by Natasha Whitmill, Cameron’s election agent in Witney, in favour of the church group’s official choice, Mark Hemsworth, who is from Chipping Norton, regularly photographs Mr Cameron and has tweeted his approval of the Conservatives .

Whitmill said that the choice to only allow one photographer had been “a decision the organisers made”, any suggestions of interference were completely untrue and that “anything untoward was for security”.

Hance insisted that Cameron’s team had been “at pains to point out that they were not going to interfere”. But in an email sent to another photographer excluded from the event on 8 April, and CCed to Whitmill, Hance wrote: “Following instructions this morning from Cameron’s office, I have been asked to limit the number of photographers present … to just one person – namely Mark Hemsworth.”

So, the Tory party say they haven’t exerted any undue influence and Churches Together say they were acting on instructions from Cameron’s office.

If the Tory’s record on the NHS has been such a spectacular success, what does Cameron have to fear from someone standing as a candidate to champion that cause? Could it be that, in the same way as Cameron chickened out of a head-to-head with Ed Miliband, he realised that someone clearly his intellectual superior would make mincemeat out of him at a public meeting?

Let’s just remind ourselves of something Cameron said in his “contract” before the 2010 election:

“So this is the contract with you. I want you to read it and – if we win the election – use it to hold us to account. If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.”

Dr Peedell was going to do exactly that. Hold Cameron to account over the NHS. What sort of democracy is this? One that insists in the absolute sanctity of everyone’s right to be heard, to speak out, to protest, to debate the current issues, UNLESS IT WILL MAKE CAMERON LOOK LIKE A COMPLETE IDIOT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC!

Some democracy indeed! The spectre of an Orwellian regime continues to hover over the Tory party’s campaign.

Kind regards

Polly

12 days to go - In which we find lies, damned lies and letters from David!

25/04/15

Dear Claire,

Well, we’re only 12 days away from polling day, so I thought it might be appropriate to look at what the Tories promised us before the 2010 election, and compare that with what has been delivered.

This is what was in the document ‘A contract between the Conservative Party and you’, which was conveniently removed from the website quite some time ago. I wonder why? Was it because they thought people might want to remind themselves of what promises were broken?

 

Cameron started this ‘contract’ by saying

“We go into this general election on 6^th May with trust in politics and politicians at an all-time low. And I can understand why: the years of broken promises, the expenses scandal, the feeling that politicians have become too remote from the people – they’ve all taken their toll.

“That’s why I’m writing to you now

“For too long, you’ve been lied to by politicians saying they can sort out all your problems. But it doesn’t work like that. Real change is not just about what the government does. Real change only comes when we understand that we are all in this together; that we all have a responsibility to help make our country better. That’s why I’m sending you this document. It sets out my side of the bargain: the things I want to do to change Britain.

“But it also makes clear that I cannot do it on my own. We will only get our economy moving, mend our broken society and reform our rotten political system if we all get involved, take responsibility and work together.

“So this is the contract with you. I want you to read it and – if we win the election – use it to hold us to account. If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.”

HA! Well, I’m with you on that last sentence: your party hasn’t delivered, and I will not be voting Tory, and I sincerely hope you’re voted out of government. Mind you, I haven’t voted Tory for 33 years.

Anyway, Cameron’s ‘promises’ continue as follows, under three separate headings. We’ll look at the first one tomorrow, the other two in the days after that, and then maybe we’ll sum up nearer May 7^th.

“We will change Politics

“Our political system needs to change. Politicians must be made more accountable, and we must take power away from Westminster and put it in the hands of the people – individuals, families and neighbourhoods

“We will change the economy

“Gordon Brown’s economic incompetence has doubled the national debt, given us record youth unemployment and widened the gap between rich and poor. Unemployment is still rising and this year we will spend more on debt interest than on schools. We need to get our economy moving

“We will change society

“We face big social problems in this country: family breakdown, educational failure, crime and deep poverty. Labour’s big government has failed; we will help build a Big Society where everyone plays their part in mending our broken society”

Oh Claire, it gives me no pleasure at all to see how badly your party have reneged on their promises.  It has resulted in so much social hardship and deprivation. We’ll get into the details tomorrow, but this sets the scene. It is a pack of lies from start to finish, and contradicts virtually everything you wrote in your letter to me in June/July 2014.

The last five years have been a complete and utter disappointment from start to finish.

Best wishes

Polly

13 days to go - In which we look forward to a real life '1984' being implemented

24/04/15

Dear Claire,

Another fairly short letter today, as I’ve only just got back from London.

For today, I thought we’d have a bit of fun, and run through the definition of ‘Orwellian’ from a few days ago. What we can do then, is match every separate bit of this definition with something IDS has done.

I took the definition in my letter of the 21^st from Wikipedia: "Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past.

“Destructive to the welfare of a free and open society”

Well where do we begin?

Exhibit A: The Tories want to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and to repeal the UK’s Human Rights Act.

Exhibit B: The Tories want to ban anyone working for a government organisation from talking to the media without ministerial permission.

“An attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda”

From a Job-Centre worker: “The [DWP] reforms have been designed to hide the numbers of unemployed.  So many have been sanctioned and are not counted in the official figures.  Many are desperate and will take these Mickey Mouse zero-hour contracts to escape the fortnightly gauntlet.”

“An attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by surveillance”

From a Job-Centre worker: “In your team meetings or one-to-one, it will be mentioned, and staff will be asked why they haven’t got as many [sanctions]. Some staff are getting scared that they aren’t doing enough and they will be marked in the ‘must improve’ category. Enough warnings and you could be out of a job. DWP will say there are no targets and if any manager is still using the term target they will get a reprimand. However, I have seen the District tables which clearly show the direction an office is travelling in with regards to sanctions and referrals. Offices which are lower than the highest performing office will be told they must aim towards similar numbers or else. They are too crafty to put anything in an email, or at least most of them are.”

 

“An attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by misinformation”

 

“Wage Incentives. This scheme is an absolute disgrace.  Employ an 18 – 24 yr old for 6 months and the taxpayer will give you £2.5k.  Vacancies that were full paid jobs are now changing to Wage Incentive vacancies as Job-centre staff convince employers to accept money for nothing.  This is seriously affecting the jobs market and it is all down to Coalition pressure to increase Wage Incentive targets.  They can then claim falsely that the scheme has created 1000’s of vacancies, when in truth it hasn’t. One example of many.

 

“An attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by denial of truth”

 

Iain Duncan Smith’s refusal to acknowledge that increased use of Trussell Trust’s Food Banks might be linked to his disastrous policies. 31% of people using Foodbanks do so because of delays to their receiving benefits. 17% do so because of changes to their benefits. Thus, a staggering 48% of Foodbank customers do so as a direct result of Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms. IDS will not acknowledge that increased Food Bank useage is, in any way, linked to his many failed reforms. Again, one example of many.

 

“An attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by manipulation of the past”

So IBS’s “mandatory unpaid labour or destitution” rules being declared unlawful because they’re impossible to understand begs the question of how it might have been possible for people to understand the new emergency rules that hadn’t even been written yet? Applying the law retrospectively, because the original rules were unintelligible, alters the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which means people can be punished for failing to comply with rules that hadn’t even been written at the time!

 

The imposition of retrospective law is a fascist concept because it grants the state new powers to criminalise law abiding citizens for engaging in activities that were not criminal offences at the time.

 

Conclusion

 

The nightmare of this government is, hopefully, coming to an end very soon. Otherwise Animal Farm and 1984 might become a bit more than just a couple of literary classics. That one cabinet member is able to visit this misery and indeed death on so many, and get away with it, as well as deny it, speaks volumes for the ‘guidance’ coming down from the top and other cabinet colleagues.

 

Kind regards

 

Polly

14 days to go - In which Dave tries to woe naughty Nigel's fans back

23/04/15

Dear Claire,

It’s going to have to be a fairly brief letter today, as I have to go to London for work and need to catch a train. You know – the one from Bedwyn that you managed to get electrification for….oh, I remember, you didn’t did you.

Anyway, I will take a break from shooting fish in a barrel – the ongoing IDS bashing, it really is so easy! The field is rich with pickings, despite IDS denying everything.

On the radio this morning (The Today Programme on Radio 4), the hosts interviewed a chap from the vehicle engineering firm Mira. Now Mira are involved in all sorts of things. They’re a vehicle engineering design, test and development firm.

The chap being interviewed was the CEO. He was saying what a disaster it would be for the UK to leave the EU. He said that when negotiating with companies overseas, even though we don’t yet know whether there’s going to be a referendum on EU membership, he is ALREADY being questioned about this. He is having to give overseas companies, with which he wants to do business, assurances that ‘No, Britain is not about to leave the EU’. He’s being questioned about this by companies outside the EU (e.g. China), so the UK leaving the EU would not only have ramifications as regards our position with other EU states, but would affect our ability to do business globally.

Can you see how damaging even the prospect of holding an in/out referendum on EU membership is? That the Tories can even contemplate this when they are “The party that likes to do business” and “The bankers’ friend” is madness.

Yes, I know naughty Nigel’s manifesto is entirely costed on immediate withdrawal from the EU, as well as stopping overseas aid, but other than a few reluctant IQs, I don’t think many people take him too seriously. It has been said you got a bit of a rough ride at one of the local hustings meetings by some of his more vocal supporters.

Anyway, Cameron has desperately been talking up the Tory promise (whatever one of those might be worth) to hold an in/out referendum. I don’t think he’s really thought this one through! It’s a desperate attempt to woe back those disaffected Tories that have strayed ever further to the right, and are threatening to vote for naughty Nigel.

The reality of this is that you’re taking a shotgun, resting both feet on a stool in front of you, and not so much shooting yourself in the foot, as blasting both lower legs to kingdom come. It is reckless and the consequence, like so much that comes out of any voice in the Cabinet, has not been considered. It’s a purely populist knee-jerk reaction to stem the tide of people swayed by naughty Nigel’s rhetoric.

The problem is, it’s already hurting British companies, and it will continue to do so.

So where are you taking your battle bus today? Who’s going to be on the receiving end of your smiley “I’m Claire Perry, your local Conservative parliamentary candidate”? You may even get your photo in the local news again. That’ll be exciting!

Kind regards

Polly

15 days to go - In which Iain continues on his crusade of virtuous reform!

22/04/15 

Dear Claire, 

As promised, we’ll carry on from where we left off yesterday. You may remember we were discussing IDS’s “Profound Moral Mission” – you know, the one in which more than 10,000 people died as a result of the ATOS Work Capability Assessments, in the first year alone (2011). Any guesses for 2012, 2013 or 2014? I wonder how many more have died since then. 

Anyway, once again I would like to acknowledge the work of Thomas G Clark and his excellent blog, Another Angry Voice. 

 

To remind ourselves, we were talking about an article written by Peter Oborne in the Torygraph. In the same week that the Bedroom Tax was introduced, Oborne wrote an article entitled: “George Osborne can’t claim credit for Iain Duncan Smith’s virtuous reforms". Oborne’s article contained the phrase “At the heart of Mr Duncan Smith’s programme (of welfare reforms) is a profound moral vision”.  

Let’s consider some more “virtuous reforms”:

Iain Duncan Smith’s profound moral mission,

Virtuous reform number 4: Sanctions.

The number of people being stripped of all their social security payments (often for absolutely ludicrous reasons) has risen to almost a million. Between 2010 and 2013, IDS repeatedly lied to parliament and the public, claiming that there was no such thing as Sanctions League Tables.

In March 2013, the “non-existent” Sanctions League Tables were leaked to the press. DWP whistle-blowers have explained that the sanctions regime resulted in those with learning difficulties and/or mental illness being tricked into committing sanctionable offences, whilst the small minority of hard-core benefits cheats were left well alone, because more often than not, they know the rules better than most of the DWP staff.

One of the most shocking cases is that of Mark Wood. Mark was not a well man, but he was declared fit for work by ATOS, and stripped of his benefits. He starved to death some four months later.

What kind of Orwellian definition of "virtuous" would you have to be using to apply it to a sanctions regime with targets to drive vulnerable people off benefits, resulting in people actually starving to death?

Virtuous reform number 5: Wasteful spending and Mismanagement.

IDS's welfare reforms have seen massive profligacy with taxpayers' money. His Universal Credit scheme is way behind schedule and way over budget. Some £120 million has been written off on botched IT procurement and staff working on Universal Credit have described working on the project as "soul-destroying", "unbelievably frustrating" and "a complete nightmare". Other staff complained of "a near complete absence of anything that looks like strategic leadership in the programme" and "a divisive culture of secrecy" [source].

Another area of extraordinary waste is Iain Duncan Smith's Work Programme, in which private companies are paid money for finding people work. It has been shown over and again that these companies claim this money from the taxpayer, even when their clients found work entirely independently of, or even despite their interference. If it were a Labour minister responsible for this kind of grotesquely incompetent financial mismanagement, Peter Oborne and the Daily Telegraph would be screaming blue murder, but because it's Oborne's mate IDS, it is instead described by them as "wonderful and virtuous"! What kind of Orwellian definition of "virtuous" would you have to be using to apply it to welfare reforms which ensure that ever larger slices of the welfare budget end up in corporate pockets, instead of in the pockets of the people the welfare system was actually designed to help?

That’s probably enough Virtuous Reforms for the moment!

We’ll sum up Oborne’s Torygraph article tomorrow, and perhaps we’ll compare IDS’s behaviour to the definition of ‘Orwellian’ I quoted yesterday, which incidentally came from Wikipedia.

Hang on, Wikipedia – where have I heard that name today? The radio, that’s it. The Today programme, this morning on Radio 4. It seems as if our favourite Tory Party Chairman, the oily Mr Shapps, has been embellishing his profile! Now, who else in a prominent cabinet position has lied about his past? Why, it’s IDS! IDS lied about his attendance at Perugia University, his rank in the Army and his education at Dunchurch College of Management. Three lies on his CV alone, how can ANYONE believe a single word that man says?

Kind regards

Polly