Random angry post

Haven't been blogging over the last couple of weeks as I have been Not Well so I have missed two events I never thought would happen (The death of Margaret Thatcher and the NZ Labour party coming up with a good sound policy) and one that was sadly predictable (A terrorist attack in the USA).

But I break radio  silence, briefly, just to comment on the latter, how it is insane - utterly insane - that something like the Boston Bombing leads to junking of basic rights and safeguards but an atrocity like Sand Hook provokes shrill demands to Keep Your Hands Off Our Guns and Our Rights Are Sacrosanct. Tells you everything that is wrong with the USA (well, not everything, there's Bon Jovi as well) in a nutshell. A two faced, hypocritical, self deluding arse-about-tit nutshell.

That 'painless' benefits cap

Ther Con Dem coalition has justified its plans to cap total benefit claims for households on the grounds that it is fair, as beneficiaries shouldn't receive more than a typical working family. They've argued it is essential to take these tough measures - while also claiming the cap won't cause any real hardship - because it will save money. They lied.

Straight from the horse's horse's secretary's mouth pen ...

Firstly we are concerned that the savings from this measure, currently estimated at £270m savings p.a from 2014-2015 does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost. In addition Local Authorities will have to calculate and administer reduced Housing Benefit to keep within the cap and this will mean both demands on resource and difficult handling locally.

Secondly, we are worried about the impact of this measure on our ability to build social housing for families through the new affordable rent product. To fund new affordable housing development providers need to be able to charge rents of up to 80% of the market levels but the impact of the Overall Benefit Cap will prevent them from doing so in many areas greatly reducing their financial capacity. Initial analysis suggests that of the 56,000 new affordable rent units up to 23,000 could be lost. And reductions would disproportionately affect family homes rather than small flats. For example it would be extremely difficult to fund any 4 bed properties, so desperately needed, anywhere in the country - disproportionately impacting on families and therefore children.

Finally, our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap. This on top of the of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to Housing Benefit. We are already seeing increased pressures on homelessness services. I understand that there may be a suggestion around requiring families to divert a percentage of their non-housing (benefit) income to cover housing costs. It is important not to underestimate the level of controversy that this would generate (likely to dwarf anything already seen on the HB only caps) and the difficulty of justifying this in policy terms as well as implementation. (1)

Awesome, Con Dem coalition. A way of reducing economic activity and worsening the housing situation (through fewer social homes being built), increasing homelessness that costs more than the status quo? Outstanding work.

And on top of that, a rather hopeful suggestion that exempting Child Benefit from the housing cap might resolve these issues - finally turning the old stereotype of the benefit queen, who has children to get a better house, into actual policy.

This coalition is so crazed Eric Pickles - ERIC PICKLES - sounds sane and reasoned.

Meanwhile - as the coalition plots to make 40,000 people homeless at the taxpayer's expense, and connives to engineer an unjustified pay cut for public servants - the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg turned his attention to another group of - apparently more deserving - beneficiaries:

As a result of what I have described the Queen is paying a higher rate of tax than anybody else. We should remember that and I hope that the Chancellor will be generous. I would like the 15% provision to be increased because we want to have a glamorous monarchy that befits the status of our nation. We are a great nation, a noble nation and a nation that has had power across the globe in the past. We have one of the finest histories of any country in the world. When I see the coronation coach being pulled through the streets of London, I want to see it being pulled by the finest horses that money can buy and I want to see it gilded with the finest gold that can be bought. I want Her Majesty to have as a jubilee present the finest window that can be funded by Members of Parliament. That is the status of monarchy that we want and I urge the Chancellor to remember that. Even though I know that we are in this time of austerity, that we are all in it together and that the Opposition spent all the money, maxed out the credit card and so on, we should look after Her Majesty. (2)

Yes, as long as the proles can see the monarch trot past in a pretty carriage pulled by some pampered horses, they'll know their place and accept their lot.

These freaks are beyond satire.

1 - "Full text of letter from the office of Eric Pickles," published in The Guardian, 2nd of July, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/02/full-text-letter-eric-pickles-welfare-reform?intcmp=239)
2 - Jacob Rees-Moog, speaking in the house of Commons, 30th of June, 2011. As recorded in Hansard for that date, colum 1172. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110630/debtext/110630-0003.htm)

Come and see the vileness inherent in the system!

Look I wasn't going to say anything about the royal wedding, because a) I don't really care much about it, and b) I don't want to be seen as a horrible grinch. It's nice that William Windsor and Kate Middleton are getting married. They seem like nice people and I hope they're happy. There's enough miserable marriages in the world without wishing for more of them, just because the persons involved happen to be ridiculously privileged and fortunate.

But, this isn't directly about the wedding, so I'll do it anyway.

Much has been made about the fact that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown haven't been invited to the wedding. Many have claimed this is a deliberate snub to them; and others (including the palace) have tried to explain it away, as they aren't 'Knights of the Garter,' unlike John Major and Margaret Thatcher, who have been invited (1).

I don't know why people are trying to argue it isn't a snub. As Martin Kettle - hardly a squealing leftie - points out, it most certainly is. And it shows what a petulant bunch of point scoring, reactionary Tory lovers the royals are:

Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.

What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments. (2)

Basically, it's a massive snub - more a "Fuck off you peasants" - not just to Blair and Brown, but to us plebs who voted for Labour, whose representatives they were to the Crown. Indeed, it's a snub to democracy itself!

A vile, patrician attitude, in otherwards, which has demeaned what should have been a lovely day for the youngish couple.

And we're supposed to tug our forelocks and make obeisance to people who still entertain such deluded ideas of their own innate superiority. Maybe five hundred years ago. But in the 21st century, if we're going to have to put up with a silly anachronism like a royal family, then respect has to be mutual. Respect us, or we'll bloody well overthrow you.

That said, have a nice day, Mr and Mrs Windsor-to-be. And a very happy life together. I mean it.

1 - "Royal wedding snub for Blair and Brown criticised by ministers," by Nicholas Watt. Published in The Guardian, 27th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/27/royal-wedding-snub-blair-brown)
2 - "Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again," by Martin Kettle. Published by The Guardian, 28th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/vote-yes-to-av-conservatives-fear)