The Mail on Sunday has this hatchet job on London’s firefighters.
Who will actually fall for this pathetic attack?
In any other circumstance, having a second job to make ends meet would be applauded by the Rabid-Right.
Not when there’s a trade union involved though, it seems.
But even Daily Mail readers weren’t buying the hatchet-job. Here are the top rated comments.
contribution by Samer Makhlouf
Every day, for three weeks now, the media junkie in me flips through news channels, scours online media, and reads top local dailies expecting to see rapid developments to get Israeli-Palestinian direct peace talks back on track.
But, if anything, the two-state solution is fading away fast as Palestinian lands continue to disappear under further Israeli settlement construction and expansion.
International pressure to extend the building moratorium is not enough; definitive measures are necessary if these direct peace talks are to survive beyond the October deadline to solve the deadlock.
Continue reading
I posted last Sunday about my plans to stop shopping with retailers whose senior managers publicly champion George Osborne’s ideologically-driven spending cuts.
I thought that post would go the way of most women-and-shopping stories (and indeed of women-and-anything stories), but things went a lot better than usual. Thousands of people turned up to read and rightwingers went into tailspin - two very good reasons to push on in my view.
So. These are the three companies we’re boycotting in November – ASDA, Boots and Mothercare. Here are boycotters on facebook. And here’s a very good site that discusses the corporate behaviour of the companies that signed that Telegraph letter.
The chance to hit pro-cuts businesses where they’ll feel it seems to have struck a chord. Consumers want to redefine their notions of ethical business. Ethical business cannot, by definition, avoid tax, or cheerlead a widely-criticised cuts programme that threatens jobs, economic recovery and retail and local commerce. Vodafone protests, enthusiasm for boycotts, big anticuts protests – you’re seeing a revitalised scene.
contribution by Debora Singer
In a month when it emerged that two court orders were required before Home Office officials would refer a woman in immigration detention for a crucial scan on her unborn baby, it is timely to focus on the challenges facing women who seek asylum in the UK. And the challenges are immense.
In research conducted last year by the Refugee Council, for example, 76% of the women in their study had been raped. Some women had been raped in their country of origin, some during transit, and some after arrival in the UK.
Continue reading
contribution by Marcus Warner
It might serve as but a footnote in the wider debate, but the Welsh language channel S4C might well be the catalyst for a massive change in the BBC.
It would seem at the very last minute, Jeremy Hunt has decided that S4C essentially be funded and managed by the BBC. Personal concerns about S4C retaining its independence aside, what it does represent is ‘top slicing’ by any other name.
It is my view that the BBC is simply not fit for purpose for an increasingly devolved British democracy.
Continue reading
The Sun has this tucked away on their website, published on Thursday:
An article on 15 September reported RMT General Secretary Bob Crow had a union-subsidised home and luxury car.
In fact, Mr Crow’s home has never been subsidised by the union and he does not own a car, union or otherwise, and champions public transport.
We are happy to set the record straight and apologise to Mr Crow.
Let’s hope there was a massive legal bill for the Sun too.
via Tom Miller
David Cameron today took questions regarding the rise of the EU budget by Newsnight’s Michael Crick.
The arrogance in the way he responds is astounding. He says:
We are all in it together including, deliciously, the BBC, who in another negotiation have agreed a licence fee freeze for six years. So what is good for the EU is good for the BBC, is good for everyone.
All in this together? Who still believes that?
Watch
Yesterday the government’s plans to cut child benefit unravelled. Today the National Housing Federation made a devastating attack on their housing cuts.
Housing experts in the National Housing Federation has warned that the government’s housing cuts will actually increase welfare spending and reduce incentives to work. It says increasing rents by up to 80% of the market rate to pay for new homes will mean more tenants having to rely on housing benefit to pay them, which will increase the overall benefits bill.
The plans will also trap thousands of tenants in welfare dependency because they will simply not be able to earn enough money to pay for their homes without the support of housing benefit. While most tenants who are being charged the new intermediate rates will have their rents part- or fully-paid for through housing benefit, the sums charged will be so high that if they do get a job much of their earnings will be eaten up through rent repayments. This is because every pound that claimants earn will be largely cancelled out by the amount of housing benefit being withdrawn. As a result, the new intermediate rents will act as a powerful disincentive to work.
Federation chief executive David Orr said: ‘The real answer to current concerns over housing benefit, and the intensifying housing crisis, is to allow housing associations to continue building social homes at scale. However, under this model no new real social homes will be built over the course of this Parliament beyond those already in the pipeline.’
Rather than take action to solve the housing crisis, the government’s cuts will just make it worse – reducing work incentives and increasing the benefits bill.
Government ministers will only talk about the benefits cap, hence David Cameron making the claim that “If you are prepared to pay £20,000 in housing benefit, there is no reason why anyone should be left without a home.”
But this is just one small element of a set of cuts which will take money away from pensioners, carers and people in low paid jobs, as well as people who are out of work.
1. The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are either pensioners, disabled people, those caring for a relative or hardworking people on low incomes, and only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed.
2. The cap on housing benefits – which the discussion in the media has focused on - saves £65 million. This is less than 3% of the total which is being cut from housing benefits.
3. The government plans to save £100 million by cutting housing benefits payments by 10% for people who are unemployed for more than one year.
4. The amount paid in housing benefits will be reduced in every area of the country, not just in London. You can see the reductions in your local area here. Continue reading
The success of the entire Osborne and Cameron political project depends on one measure: job creation. Their theory says the private sector is being stifled and can easily step in to offset job-losses in the public sector, which they regard as having grown too large.
If jobs don’t get created in large numbers soon (2m jobs in five years is projected), the deficit won’t fall and our economy will remain stagnant.
In this second ‘mythbuster’, I explain why Tory dreams of such huge job creation are very likely to be mythical. Not only is the Conservative project a pipe-dream, but we are right to argue these cuts won’t work.
Continue reading