Politics – General Election – Joey Essex
Joey Essex Shares his Political Insights A reality TV star, Joey Essex, has interviewed Nick Clegg. These kind of one off interviews can sometimes pose difficulties for the party leaders. One of the main problems can be that the interviewer does not stick to the unofficial rules and can pose hard questions. They have no relationship with the interviewee and as they are unlikely to interview them again do not mind upsetting the subject of the interview. What did we learn from Joey Essex about Nick Clegg? Joey praised Nick Clegg for his “honesty”. That was because it seems that Nick Clegg came clean and admitted that he was unlikely to win the General Election 2015. Such bravery from Nick Clegg. Other revelations included that Nick Clegg’s party is actually called “Liberal Democrats”. What Joey Essex thought they were called, heaven knows. The revelation that amuses me most is that Joey Essex thought that Nick Clegg’s name is actually Clegg and not “Leg”.
Politics – General Election 2015 – Labour and Big Business
Labour Attacked by the Boss of Boots The Chemist The Labour Party was attacked at the weekend by Stefano Pessina who is the Executive Chairman of Walgreens Boots Alliance which owns Boots The Chemist. He said that a Labour government would be bad for business and bad for the country. He said “If they (Labour) acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe.”As he lives in Monaco, naturally, Labour has attacked him for being a tax exile. Presumably, they meant an Italian tax exile. What seems to be happening is that whereas previous Labour leaders went out of their way to be nice to big business Milliband is not as concerned about the issue. As everyone thinks that big businesses spend most of their time avoiding, if not evading, tax perhaps Milliband relishes taking them on. More people are sceptical of the way businesses are run and try to evade their responsibilities. That could play well for the Labour Leader. In the meantime the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph have criticised the Labour leader and that was “trying to shut down” criticism of his policies with “personal attacks” on critics. No surprise there, when they start supporting Labour that would be news. The former boss at Marks and Sparks, Lord Rose weighed in against labour’s business policies. As he is a Tory peer that is also not much of a surprise. Peter Mendelson has warned the Labour leadership to be careful about the language it uses about its approach to big businesses. Along with various What big business seems to dislike, amongst other things, is the pledge to raise the top rate of tax from 45p to 50p and the proposed freeze of electricity and gas bills. Anything that gets in the way of profits is a “Bad Thing”, obviously. Just like the minimum wage which was attacked by big business. All right thinking people know that what is required is less legislation and control over businesses.
POLITICS – General Election 2015 When is a Tory Cut not a Cut?
Tory Education Promise Not What it Seems Who would have thought that politicians would say one thing and mean another? On Sunday Nicky Morgan, who ‘replaced’ Michael Gove as Education Secretary said that spending on education would be ring fenced should the Tory party win the general election 2015. Actually, she said that education spending in schools would be ring fenced. Not education spending as a whole, just the spending on schools. That leaves the way open for cuts to pre-school and higher education spending. Yesterday Cameron ‘clarified’ what the Tory pledge means. It seems that spending (only on schools, remember) would be protected only to the extent of “flat cash” per pupil spending. In other words as inflation goes up the spending would not. That is a cut. Mr Cameron said this would mean “difficult decisions”. Now, there is an euphemism if there ever was one, he means that education will be clobbered, but only after we have been so stupid as to re-elect him. He went on to say that the government had demonstrated that with greater efficiency “more could be achieved with less”. That Euphemism means that Cameron cuts the budget and those of goodwill takes up the slack, the big society and all that. You know the sort of thing, we threaten to close the local library, you volunteer to work in it for free. Labour’s shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, said that Tory claims to protect funding were “unravelling” and represented a “real-terms cut”. Mr Hunt went on to say; “The truth is that you can’t protect schools when you have plans to take spending as a share of GDP back to levels not seen since the 1930s.” I have not done the sums, and have no reason to believe Hunt’s at face value but I see where he is coming from. The Tory party has a philosophy built on the belief that the ‘state’ should be as small as possible. That is why they voted against the NHS when the Labour party brought it in. They are only being true to their core beliefs. The Tory party may say “we will protect the Welfare State” what they really mean is “screw you, if you do not have enough money to buy health insurance or pay school fees from their friends.” The Liberal Democrat’s schools minister was typically scathing and harsh. He said that Cameron’s financial commitment was “unbelievably weak”. Believe me, for a Lib Dem THAT is being very harsh. In a hard hitting, incisive, analysis he said that the Tory commitments would mean a real term cut for schools and deep cuts in spending on pre-school and post 16 education. Talking about school standards Cameron said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure”, they would raise achievement in 3,500 schools rated “requires improvement” by Ofsted. All this with a real term cut over the next 5 years. A good trick if you could do it, but then they can’t and they don’t care. Not only because the Tory party does not believe in the State helping those of us who can not pay school fees, but because it is impossible to raise standards and to cut resources at the same time. Cameron went on, he said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure” schools that are rated as requiring improvement would have new leaderships imposed on them. They would have to be taken over by academy sponsors. Big and good academies would take over small and failing academies. Failing schools would sack their headmasters, he did not mention public flogging but surely that can not be long in coming. For her part Nicky Morgan did not say that the Tory party would automatically sack the heads “Where a school doesn’t have the capacity to improve itself, and many do, or where they don’t have a plan that is going to lead to that school being rated good or outstanding, then one of the answers might be to get new leadership in.” Sounds like sacking the heads of failing schools to me. Cameron said “No-one wants their child to go to a failing school and no-one wants to them to go to a coasting school either, Just enough is not good enough. That means no more sink schools and no more ‘bog standard” he went on to say “Our aim is this: the best start in life for every child, wherever they’re from – no excuses.” Good for Cameron, the best for all children, especially if they can afford to pay fees.
Phil’s British Heart Foundation Donation – you know it makes sense
