Jan 2 2013
CODS: Nick Clegg, Gideon Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith… All three have the charm of a cold wet fish. All three are intent on causing those they represent hardship and misery. All three are corrupt.
Nit Clegg: Still hasn’t explained the £12 million public fund donation, fast tracked to the charity with links to his wife. Another case of, ‘Dont mention it, the Zombies will forget’. http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/?p=7601
Giddyant Osbourne: The most odious, Mr Bean type, twat of a human you could ever meet. Thinks nothing of stealing public money for his own gain while preaching that the starving in this country have too much money. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/07/taxpayers-paid-george-osborne-paddock-mortgage
Lame Dickhead Smith: Or cunt for short. Brags about taking 100,000 people of welfare while neglecting to mention that he simply stopped their payments. This has led to a 25% leap in suicide cases amongst the unemployed. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2117718/British-people-committing-suicide-escape-poverty-Is-State-wants.html
Below are three articles: one about each of them. All three are dangerous psychopaths who need bringing to book. They are nothing. They are scum. We can get rid of them… What are you people scared of?
Lib Dems’ new message for the New Year: Don’t laugh – they mean it.
Nick Clegg, that standard-bearer for sticking to your principles and refusing to let short-term expediency change your mind, has released his Liberal Democrat New Year message. It would be hilarious if the implications weren’t so serious.
You’ll remember Clegg dropped a flagship policy not to raise student tuition fees, just as soon as he could after going into coalition with the Conservative Party, and recently apologised for it as though he thought that would make everything better.
His party has been propping up some of the most poisonous policies the UK has ever seen, including the dismantling of the English NHS, starvation of the education system to prop up ‘free schools’, and the hate campaign and genetic cleansing programme against the sick and disabled that masquerades under the heading ‘welfare reform’ as run by the odious Iain Duncan Smith.
Still, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and see what he had to say.
“We will hold firm to our key purpose in this Government – the Liberal Democrats are building a stronger economy, in a fairer society, enabling every person to get on in life.” I told you it was funny. Just try not to laugh; there is a serious point to all this.
“We will stay the course on the deficit. We will cut income tax bills and help with childcare bills.
“We will invest in boosting jobs and we’ll reform welfare to get people into work.
“A stronger economy. A fairer society. Where everyone can get on.” He mentioned this twice because it’s their keystone.
It’s also utter, utter nonsense.
All of the above is taken direct from the Lib Dems’ new ‘party message script’, which I intend to elaborate in full below. I am grateful to Liberator’s blog for making the information publicly available.
Lib Dems are advised to “make it the basis for every communication we make”and “communicate from this script at every opportunity” so you’re going to hear this stuff a lot from now on. In fact, you’re going to get bored stiff with it. And remember: It’s nonsense.
So here we go. The message script runs as follows:
“Building a Stronger Economy in a Fairer Society
The Liberal Democrats are building a stronger economy in a fairer society, enabling every person to get on in life.” The same words used by Mr Clegg. But of course we know they’re not true. The economy is NOT strong; society is becoming more UNfair. FEWER people are now able to get on in life. It’s complete doublespeak and they need to be challenged on it at every turn.
“That’s why we have:
“1. Fixed the mess left by Labour. We have reduced the deficit by a quarter, kept interest rates down and created over a million private sector jobs.” What mess left by Labour? The one that would have been created if the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats had been in power? The one caused by the bankers lending irresponsibly until they tipped the economy of the western world right over the edge? HOW have they reduced the deficit?By investing in industry and employment that will increase the nation’s tax take? Or by hacking away at public services and ensuring that the infrastructure is no longer available to make such investments, thereby ensuring the economy’s pain will continue for many years to come? (I’ll give you a clue – it’s the latter). Have they really KEPT interest rates down?Or is it in fact nothing at all to do with this government and its crazy schemes?(I’ll give you a clue – it’s the latter). Did they REALLY create more than a million private sector jobs? (I’ll give you a clue – no, they didn’t. Many of those jobs are public sector jobs that they sneakily reclassified in the hope that nobody would notice. Too bad. We did).
“2. Ensured that 24 million people will not pay any income tax on the first £9,440 of earnings, putting £600 back into their pockets from April 2013.”That’s fine by the Conservatives. You know why? It means less tax money coming in to the Treasury, ensuring that the deficit and the debt continue, meaning that they can carry on saying that they need to cut services in order to make ends meet – and blaming the previous Labour government in the process. Not Labour’s fault, then; clearly the Liberal Democrats wish to take responsibility. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favour of giving the lowest-paid in society a chance to keep the money they earn, but there are better ways of doing it.
“3. Put an extra £2.5 billion into schools targeted at the least well-off pupils, raising standards for everyone.” I have no idea what they’re on about here. If anyone can enlighten me about this – clearly vitally important – Liberal Democrat policy that has slipped under my news radar, I would be very grateful. In the meantime all I can say is that £2.5 billion, in terms of the education budget, isn’t very much. Isn’t it about £1 billion less than Lansley spent, ruining the English NHS?
“4. Created a Green Investment Bank that will unlock billions of pounds of private investment in renewable energy and create thousands more jobs in the green economy.” Would this be the “Non-bank needing to prove itself” that Damian Carrington has discussed in his Guardian blog? If it hasn’t done anything yet, it’s pointless to trumpet it as an achievement.
“5. Got young people off the dole and into work through apprenticeships, work placement or training with our £1 billion Youth Contract.” Ah yes, the Youth Contract. From memory – Average length of time a person stays in a job last year: four months. Effectiveness of work placements at getting people into jobs: less than if they had simply gone looking themselves. How many young people are on the dole? Is it around one million? The figures speak for themselves.
“6. Delivered the biggest ever cash rise in the state pension.” Because you can always rely on a pensioner to vote. Therefore you try to keep ‘em sweet so they’ll vote for you.
“The Labour Party can’t be trusted to manage the economy. Labour borrowed and borrowed and nearly bankrupted Britain. In power they cared more about bankers, media bosses and union barons than they did about ordinary, working people.” Labour borrowing during the vast majority of its 13 years in power wasLOWER – let me say that again, LOWER – than any Conservative government during the previous 40 years or so (Labour average: 39 per cent; Tory average: 41 per cent – you see, keeping lots of people unemployed in order to artificially depress wages is a poor arrangement). Overborrowing was NOThabitual for the Labour Party and so that part of the Liberal Democrat message is a LIE. Labour did borrow a huge amount of money to deal with a single issue – the banking crisis – and was supported in this by the other main political parties of the time, including the Liberal Democrats. So, a lie followed by hypocrisy. As for bankers and media bosses – I notice the Coalition has been chumming up to these since May 2010, so that’s also a matter of hypocrisy. Labour tried hard for ordinary working people with tax credits and social reforms but I don’t agree with much of what the party did. Better by far to ensure they get paid enough not to need benefits at all. I notice that is not part of any Liberal Democrat policy.
“The Conservatives can’t be trusted to build a fair society. Until the Lib Dems got into government, no one could stop the Tories from looking after the super rich who fund their party, while ignoring the needs of normal people who struggle to make ends meet.” Until the Lib Dems got into government, the Tories were LOSING super-rich funders because they weren’t in power. The Lib Dems have shored up Tory funding by going into coalition with them. It’s true that they can’t be trusted to build a fair society, though. Since the Lib Dems accept that, why continue with the Coalition at all?
“That’s why we have blocked Tory plans to:
1. Allow bosses to fire staff at will.” But the notice period for mass redundancies is being cut from 90 days to 45, with help from the Liberal Democrats.
“2. Let local schools be run for profit.” But it’s all right to allow the creation of so-called ‘free schools’ at huge cost, run by amateurs and sucking funding away from the established education system?
“3. Cut inheritance tax for millionaires.” But allowed the forthcoming Income Tax cut that will put £107,000 per year back into the pockets of those who are paid more than £1 million per year.
“4. Introduce lower rates of pay for public sector workers outside of the South East.” But allowed the abolition of Council Tax Benefit, meaning those who are worst off will have to pay more, just to keep their homes.
“Now, with your support, we want to keep building a stronger economy in a fairer society.” Keep building? KEEP BUILDING? When will they START?
“Over the next two years we will:
“1. Increase our tax cut for low and middle earners to £700 for 24 million people.” Thereby forwarding the Tory ‘Starve the Beast’ policy of cutting the flow of tax money into public services. As I said before – pay people enough money in the first place and they won’t need this help.
“2. Dramatically increase parents’ access to child care so that it’s easier for parents to get back into jobs.” What jobs?
“3. Reform the welfare system to get people off benefits and into work.” What work? There are previous few jobs out here, a fact of which both Coalition parties continue appearing to be oblivious. Meanwhile, welfare cuts (I refuse to call them reforms) are driving hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people to despair, destitution, and in many cases death. Remember: the Liberal Democrats are swimming in blood, just like the Tories.
“4. Create tens of thousands of jobs across Britain in the new, green economy.” This is meaningless – a promise that cannot be supported at this time.
“Let’s never go back to the way things were, because Labour can’t be trusted with your money, and the Tories can’t be trusted to build a fair society.” I think I’ve already explained the reasons this is a stupid thing for Liberal Democrats to be saying.
“Only the Lib Dems can be trusted to build a stronger economy and a fairer society, enabling every person to get on in life.” See my response to the paragraph immediately above.
“STRONGER ECONOMY. FAIRER SOCIETY.” Vote ALL Liberal Democrats out of Parliament at the next election, then.
Osborne update: Information sent to Standards Commissioner
Dear ——- —-,
Thank you for your email of December 20, and for replying to my complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP so promptly.
Herewith please find copies of Land Registry documents relating to the properties in question. These may be obtained from the Land Registry on request. It is clear from them that both properties were owned by Mr Osborne and were sold together – as a single transaction – to the new owners. Under those circumstances it is unreasonable to expect that the valuation of £445,000, which appears on both documents for the period when Mr Osborne owned those properties, relates to those properties individually; it is the value of both properties, taken together. That is how Mr Osborne bought them, and it is how he sold them. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to believe there are separate valuations for the land and the building.
It must follow, therefore, that Mr Osborne’s claim for mortgage expenses towards use of the building in the pursuance of his Parliamentary duties alsowent towards payment of mortgage expenses on the paddock, and I understand it is now a belief that is widely held by the public, that Mr Osborne did not spend a single penny of his own money on the mortgage for the properties in question.
There are questions that I cannot answer for you. I do not hold details of the single mortgage he held, that covered both the land west of Macclesfield Road (the paddock) and at Harrop Fold Farm – that would be a private document and its details would be a matter for him to divulge. Therefore I cannot say for certain whether he claimed for all of the mortgage interest or just a percentage covering the house. As a reasonable man, however, I can say that it seems unlikely he would put forward an arbitrary figure – and how would he know the correct valuation for the building alone, when he bought it and the paddock as a single package?
You rightly state that the Commissioner has already inquired into Mr Osborne’s claims for his second home over the relevant period. The only conclusion I can draw from this, in the light of the above information, is that Mr Osborne may have misled the Commissioner about the true nature of his mortgage interest payments. I would imagine this is a serious offence against the Commissioner’s office; if it is not, I am sure that the general public would be as shocked as I would.
Bear in mind also that the sum of money concerned in this affair is around £1 million. This is not a paltry amount and, if the taxpayers of the UK have been unwittingly subsidising a profit-making scheme for this man, it would be unreasonable to deny them knowledge of the matter and recompense for the misuse of their tax pounds.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response. I understand that your office would not, in any case, proceed with an investigation without a written complaint, so I will put the necessary documents in the post at my earliest convenience.
Monster of 2012 starts the New Year as he means to go on
(Yes, we can all see that it is those who receive welfare benefits that feel the pain, but it is the Secretary of State’s own lack of mental health that we’re witnessing whenever he makes a statement).
Yesterday he was banging the drum against the previous Labour government’s tax credit system. I should remind you, for the sake of clarity, that I don’t disagree with claims that tax credits were not a great way forward. The solution is for employers to pay employees enough money that they don’t need to claim social security benefits or tax credits. The principle is simple: If you’re in a job, you shouldn’t need benefits.
Insanity Dementia Smith has a different point of view. Well he would, wouldn’t he? He’s mad.
Instead, he claimed that the tax credit system, introduced in 2003, was wide open to abuse, with fraud and error costing more than £10 billion. Oh, and just for good measure, he threw in some good old-fashioned Tory xenophobia by claiming that fraudsters around the world targeted the benefit for their own personal gain.
“Tax credit payments rose by some 58 per cent ahead of the 2005 general election, and in the two years prior to the 2010 election, spending increased by about 20 per cent,” he said in a Telegraph article.
“Between 2003 and 2010, Labour spent a staggering £171 billion on tax credits, contributing to a 60 per cent rise in the welfare bill. Far too much of that money was wasted, with fraud and error under Labour costing over £10 billion.
“It will come as no surprise therefore that fraudsters from around the world targeted this benefit for personal gain. ”
Enter Channel 4′s FactCheck, whose representatives asked HM Revenue and Customs to provide the figures that support these claims. They could not.
Instead, we are told, in 2003-04, £16.4bn was paid, and the following year – the one that included the general election to which Mr Duncan Smith refers – £17.7bn. That’s an increase of 8 per cent, not 58.
The total spent on tax credits between 2003 and 2010 – under Labour – was£147bn, not £171bn.
During that time, £11.16bn was lost through fraud and error, with only 1.27bn of that down to fraud – 0.7 per cent of the total.
Regarding error, as a former tax credit recipient, I can report that HMRC was diligent to the point of harassment when it came to identifying errors and recovering the sums involved. This created considerable problems for me – and many others, I’m sure – as I received notification several times, during my claim period, that I had received large amounts in error. I could not understand this. I had filled the forms to the best of my ability. My only conclusion was that the system was complicated and its administrators had been looking for an excuse to take back money.
The result was that I had to become extremely adept, myself, at using the system. I then used it against the administrators to point out errors that they had made, and won back something like £2,000 from them. For a person living on his partner’s DLA and IB, and his own Carer’s Allowance, that’s a huge amount to have had taken away.
I wonder whether Mr Scream-at-the-moon includes money that had to be paid back after correct appeals in his calculation of error. If so, he’s wrong again because that cash was owed to the claimants (as it was to me).
The claim that fraudsters around the world targeted tax credits is completely unsubstantiated as the system does not record the nationalities of claimants.
However: Everyone claiming Working Tax Credits must have a UK National Insurance number. Everyone claiming Child Tax Credits must be able to show they are on Child Benefit, for which they must produce a birth certificate for each child, thereby proving they were born in the UK. So it seems that, while the system may not record the nationalities of claimants, those facts do, in fact, play a part in determining each claim.
Mr Smith remains a disgrace to the government. What a shame David Cameron is such a weak leader that he can’t even summon up the guts to throw him out.
STOP PRESS: What’s this, in a BBC Newsnight press release that’s just appeared on my screen?
“Aspects of Iain Duncan Smith’s CV, relating to his education, are inaccurate and misleading, an investigation by BBC Newsnight reveals.“
Do we have another Jeffrey Archer on our hands?
The investigation into the Conservative Party leader’s education and early career – broadcast at 10.30pm on BBC TWO (Wednesday 18 December 2002) – was presented by Michael Crick, author of the best-selling biography of Jeffrey Archer. It seems we do.
It seems he didn’t go to the Universita di Perugia in Italy, founded by the Pope in 1308, but to the Universita per Stranieri (University for Foreigners) which was founded in 1921 and did not grant degrees when he studied there in 1973. IDS did not get any qualifications there or even finish his exams.
He wasn’t educated at Dunchurch College of Management either. This was the former staff college for GEC Marconi, for whom he worked in the 1980s. IDScompleted six separate courses lasting a few days each, adding up to about a month in total. He quite clearly was not there for a sustained period of time and never earned a recognised qualification there.
Who’s the fraud now, Iain?