What a farce

In an article from today's Telegraph, the watchdog for MP's expenses is planning to relax the rules under which MP's can claim.
Why? Because MP's are angry about it.

IPSA said it received complaints that some MPs whose primary home is in London but represent seats outside London are unable to see their children at weekends, because they cannot afford family-sized accommodation in their constituencies.

Boo hoo. If a person with a child who lives with the other parent wants to claim social housing they cannot claim it for that child. You can only claim larger than a 1 bed if the child lives with you. Why should MP's be any different?

And if their constituency is outside London why isn't that their primary residence? If the primary residence is in London and you want to see more of your kids, here's an idea - MOVE!.
It's what IDS expects everyone else to do. Other parents travel at weekends to see their kids, what makes MP's so different?

In the long run, Ipsa’s review document also raised the prospect of eventually shifting away from the current system of detailed rules for every sort of expense claim and adopting a “principles-based” regime that gives MPs much more discretion over claims.

And will therefore be open to more abuse.

And here's what's really made me angry:

Under pressure from Tory MPs angry at IPSA, Mr Cameron has warned that the body must address members’ concerns and become more "family friendly" by April, or face possible abolition.

In other words, do what I say or I'll get rid of you. Are we still pretending we live in a democracy?

There is national outrage all over the country about the cuts to benefits, the rise in tuition fees, the slashing of jobs. But David Cameron is carrying on. A few squeals from MP's about expenses and he's threatening to abolish the watchdog.

Just goes to show doesn't it?

Source

Cameron's 'Brown' jibe

Daivd Cameron took a pop at Ed Miliband in the House of Commons after Mr M said it was no wonder he was proud of being a child of Thatcher.
Cameron retorted 'I'd rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown'.

Really DC? Because the country suffered under Thatcher. A lot. Gordon Brown may have had his faults but at least he tried. I'd rather be a child of Brown than a daughter of Thatcher anyday.

Source

Cameron contradicts himself

David Cameron wants to measure how happy we are. He says that GDP is not the best way to measure a country's progress. I agree, it doesn't.

He also said

"most urgent priority is to get the economy moving, to create jobs, to spread opportunity for everyone".

"Without a job that pays a decent wage it is hard for people to look after their families in the way that they want, whether that's taking the children on holiday or making your home a more comfortable place.

"Without money in your pocket it is difficult to do so many of the things that we enjoy."

So the Government's priority is to create jobs. Then why he cutting so many?

He acknowledges that it's hard for those who are low paid. Then why is he cutting so many of their benefits?

He talks about people wanting to make their homes a more comfortable place. Then why is he introducing measure that will force people out of their homes if they start earning more? Why is is he ensuring that those in council houses can no longer feel secure in their homes?

I'm amazed at his lack of awareness. He seems to want one thing but introduce policies that will achieve the opposite. Is this really the man our country, our 'wellbeing' is entrusted to?
Source

David Cameron's hypocrisy

He is sticking to a policy commitment he made before the economic crash when growth figures were still rosy. He said: "It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money and it's time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB – general wellbeing."

Speaking at the Google Zeitgeist Europe conference, he added: "Wellbeing can't be measured by money or traded in markets. It's about the beauty of our surroundings, the quality of our culture and, above all, the strength of our relationships. Improving our society's sense of wellbeing is, I believe, the central political challenge of our times."

He's kidding right? He wants to focus on wellbeing while slashing services and benefits that people rely on, forcing millions into poverty and misery. He and his enforcer Mr Osborne spend every day telling us the deficit is everything, that people should be in paid work, that earning is key, while then saying that there's more to life than money?

So Mr Prime minister, is you really believe this will you giving away your millions to ensure that the poor can stop focusing on money and just be happy? Somehow I suspect not.

Source

Constitutional reform?

This article in the Guardian has me worried for the future of our Government.

David 'millionaire' Cameron is preparing to install at least 50 new peers in the House of Lords. At the same time cutting the number of MP's, the large majority of which will be largely Labour.

The government's plans, however, have critics in all the main parties. Their discontent has been intensified by the knowledge that Cameron's cull of MPs is being pushed through as he prepares to install at least 50 new peers in the unelected House of Lords to increase the balance in favour of the Tories.

The Lords have always been predominantly Tory and DC plans to make it even more so. How is this democracy? Smacks more of dictatorship to me. And this is the man who has this week been urging China to embrace democracy. Hypocrisy Mr Cameron.

One senior MP said: "They talk about increasing democracy. But this is not about democracy. It is political skulduggery to keep them in power and ensure they get their legislation through."

I agree. The sooner we get this Government out the better.

Cameron's stylist now on public payroll

Isabel Spearman is the Cameron's stylist. Part of her job description is helping Samantha Cameron pick out her outfits. And funded by the tax payer.

If we're all in this together can I have a stylist too?

Read the article here

Cameron cuts back on truth

Left Foot Forward published this article on 6th October, highlighting how many 'truths' Mr Cameron has cut back on.

Some salient points:

DC:

“At its best this party always puts country first. We’ll leave the vested interests to others. And no, we’re not about self-interest either. This is the party of the national interest and with this coalition that’s what we’re showing today.”

LLF challenge:

Why then did Nick Clegg say that the Conservatives, “are the party of choice for rich bankers, and no wonder when their major tax policy is to give tax breaks to double millionaires. They even have plans to cut taxes for the banks and raise them for solid British manufacturing companies. They will never change Britain for the better because they are only interested in helping people at the top.”


DC:

50,000 apprenticeships.”

LLF:

But this only tells part of the picture: £320million has been cut from support for unemployed young people, and £50milion has been cut from training for employees and greater cuts made to higher education.

DC:

But do we have to cut now, and by this much? Isn’t there another way?” I wish there was another way. I wish there was an easier way. But I tell you: there is no other responsible way.”

LLF:

This is a political judgement. Alistair Darling’s halving of the deficit in four years is one alternative approach while Left Foot Forward has set out its own responsible deficit reduction plan which follows Darling’s timetable but focuses more on taxation than spending cuts.

How are we supposed to believe politicians when they lie, omit, evade and make fake promises?

There is much more of this article that drives the point home even further. Read it here