Monthly Archives: October 2011

Will Libdems salvage something from this awful Legal Aid bill?

contribution by Will Horwitz

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill returns reaches Report stage in the Commons this week.

And before the eye-catching business of knife crime sentences and no-win-no-fee solicitors comes up on Tuesday and Wednesday, we get legal aid and the possibility of a Lib Dem rebellion.

Public opposition to the legal aid changes has crystallised around a few issues:
Continue reading

Archbishop states support for #occupy

The Archbishop of Canterbury has finally broken his silence on the #occupy protests today, following the resignation of Dean Knowles this afternoon.

A statement posted to the Archbishop’s website said:

The announcement today of the resignation of the Dean of St Paul’s, coming as it does in the wake of the resignation of Canon Giles Fraser last week, is very sad news. The events of the last couple of weeks have shown very clearly how decisions made in good faith by good people under unusual pressure can have utterly unforeseen and unwelcome consequences, and the clergy of St Paul’s deserve our understanding in these circumstances.

Graeme Knowles has been a very distinguished Dean of St Paul’s, who has done a great deal to strengthen the pastoral and intellectual life of the Cathedral and its involvement in the life of London. He will be much missed, and I wish him and Susan well in whatever lies ahead.”

The urgent larger issues raised by the protesters at St Paul’s remain very much on the table and we need – as a Church and as society as a whole – to work to make sure that they are properly addressed.

[Emphasis ours]

Developing story…

Ken Livingstone defends #occupyLSX protest

Labour candidate for Mayor of London Ken Livingstone today defended the right of #occupyLSX protests to remain camped next to the London Stock Exchange.

He also said Mayor Boris Johnson had “wildly misjudged” the issue.

A statement by his office said:

This has been a peaceful protest, and it should be approached on that basis. City Hall has a duty to accommodate those who wish to protest in London and ensure their safety whilst ensuring the London does not grind to a halt. No one wants or expects there to be permanent camps – all protests have a beginning and an end – but the scale of the problems ordinary people are facing mean these international protests are inevitably not yet over.

It is completely unsurprising that some people are going to protest: in modern Britain directors’ pay is soaring but ordinary people are losing their jobs, seeing their services cut, and being hit with higher fees, fares and VAT. The top one per cent is doing well, the rest are being squeezed. One in ten Londoners are out of work, fares are going through the roof, hospitals and NHS services are under threat. Last week’s figures on top directors’ pay add to the powerful feeling of unfairness.

The Mayor of London’s office has wildly misjudged this issue, making the Occupy movement the enemy but failing to act on public concerns about jobs and growth. Conservative London actually stands for more unfairness, demanding a lower top rate of tax for the richest. That’s not surprising in a city where the mayor meets bankers more than the police.

The City must give more back to the wider London community that hosts it. Demands for charitable donations from bankers are inadequate. They have not addressed London’s deep inequalities and the need to get a balanced economy.

Ken becomes the most senior Labour party official to give his backing to #occupyLSX.

How the BBC and others fail to understand housing benefit

Last Thursday night I had the unenviable experience of watching ‘The Future of the Welfare State‘, with John Humphrys.

If you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favour: don’t. Watch Tory propaganda instead; the two are barely indistinguishable.

I want to use a small point made during the programme to make my own point on a topic I know too well: housing benefit, and the Tory plan to push poor people out of London.
Continue reading

Criminals to offset cuts against your stuff

contribution by Spacey

People who fail to pay their fine after they have been convicted for criminal behaviour have revealed that any loss in benefits incurred as a result will be offset against the contents of your house.

The news will come as a blow to the government who had assumed that taking money away from a convicted criminal would simply deter them from eating food and wearing clothes.

Darren Henderson, a petty thief from Bradford, said that any move to reduce his benefits would leave him with no alternative but to increase his productivity.

“As a motivational tactic the government have got this spot on,” he revealed.

“If I want to make ends meet I’ll have to up my game a bit from the odd minor offence to more profitable forms of criminal activity.”

“Hopefully this will be just the incentive I need to really make a career out of it.”

The prime minister, who is in Perth, Australia, for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, said: “People need to understand that if they are claiming benefits they will face the consequences.”

“Sorry, I meant committing crime not claiming benefits.”

I’m always getting those two mixed up.”


This is a satirical article. Spacey writes more regularly for the spoof news site Newsthump

Cameron is spending less on the NHS than even Thatcher would have

The government keeps telling us that they will deliver real terms increases in the NHS budget, but the evidence proves otherwise. Yesterday The Independent says that:

NHS total expenditure [fell] from £102.8bn in 2009-10 to £102.0bn in 2010-11 (in 2010-11 prices, rounded to nearest £0.1bn) – a real terms fall of 0.7 per cent.

Further, the House of Commons Library says net NHS Expenditure in 2009-10 (in 2010-11 prices) was £103.2bn and in 2010-11 the expenditure was £102.0bn – a real terms decrease of -1.1%.
Continue reading

Report on EDL destroys ‘ex-Labour’ myth

The think-tank Demos have published a report into the English Defence League.

They say:

While leaders of the EDL claim they are a pluralistic, liberal movement that is fighting Islamic extremism, chants heard at demonstrations and the vitriol frequently posted on the EDL’s chat forums suggest otherwise. It is in this context that we have undertaken the first ever large-scale empirical study of the EDL, which comprises responses from 1,295 sympathisers and supporters, and includes data on their demographics, involvement in EDL activity, political attitudes and social views. The results show that, although the EDL is usually understood as an anti-Islamic or anti-Islamist demonstrating group, the reality is more complex.

Supporters are characterised by intense pessimism about the UK’s future, worries about immigration and joblessness. This is often mixed with a proactive pride in Britain, British history and British values, which they see as being under attack from Islam. Although their demonstrations have often involved violence and racist chants, many members are democrats who are committed to peaceful protest and other forms of activism.

The above description sounds about right to me.

The report also destroys the myth that EDL supporters are ex-Labour supporters who have left the party; most betray right-wing sympathies:

They were asked: Who would they vote for?

BNP – 34% (public: 2%)
UKIP – 14% (3%)
Conservative – 14% (36%)
Labour – 9% (29%)
Lib Dem – 3% (23%)

Financial markets do not exist

One of the most striking aspects of the blanket media coverage of the eurozone crisis is the way in which financial markets are routinely spoken of as entities with a life of their own.

They are conceived of as capable of adhering to ethical codes, from which they have of late drifted away. Ostensibly they can experience such human emotions as tension, and even desperation, fear, panic and the jitters.

Continue reading

Despite media bias, #occupyLSX maintains wide public support

Despite attempts by the right-wing media to malign them, the #occupyLSX protesters in London maintain widespread support amongst voters.

A poll by YouGov asked for the Sunday Times today: Regardless of whether or not you agree with them protesting outside St Paul’s Cathedral, do you support or oppose the aims of the protesters?

39% of people questioned supported them, while only 26% opposed them. 35% were not sure.

Disappointingly however, there was more support for legal action to remove the protesters from outside St Paul’s Cathedral. 47% thought the Cathedral should take legal action, while 39% were opposed to such an action. 13% didn’t know.

A large proportion also felt Dr Giles Fraser, the former Chancellor of the Cathedral, was wrong to resign (42%) over the controversy. 31% said he was right to resign while 27% weren’t sure.

Similar support for the #occupy movement has been found by other polling.

An ICM poll last week asked:

You may have seen or heard that there are currently protests against capitalism and the financial system around the world, including on Wall Street in New York and in the City of London. Which one of the following statements do you most agree with?

38% of responders chose: ‘The protesters are naive; there is no practical alternative to capitalism – the point is to get it moving again’.

But a massive 52% chose: ‘The protesters are right to want to call time on a system that puts profit before people’
(‘both’ was chosen by 2% while 3% chose ‘neither’ and 6% didn’t know)

How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes

contribution by Laura Nelson

Hamleys is a large toyshop in central London. I went in there with the intention of buying a present for my niece, only to be shocked at the entrance when I saw the store layout sign.

Inside, toys are segregated by gender and are even allocated separate floors.

As I climbed the escalator and entered the floors themselves, I was even more horrified.
Continue reading