I have now been unemployed for 3 months, by the rhetoric of most government politicians I am some sort of lazy soul who simply isn't looking hard enough as such let me elucidate those who have never had to look for a job in their lives (i.e. most government politicians) or deal with the many ways of searching for one.
The headline news this morning was the multi-million trust-fund owner and tax-break giver George Osbourne stating that they'll be no money for nothing under their administration. They're going to make the long-term unemployed do community work.
What I find annoying anything about this is that they're partially right, but due to their indulgent background and rigid dogma they're doing it wrong.
First up is the non-explicitly stated, but easily-inferred, assumption that these people can't get jobs because they're lazy so let me tell you a tale.
A friend of mine works part-time and, coincidentally, also does voluntary community work. He was looking to supplement his earnings with another part-time job that complimented his existing employment. He applies for suitable positions and gets asked: "So you'll be giving up your other part-time job then?".
Why this question? Because they don't just want him to work the stipulated hours they want to be able to whistle and have him run.
Take my position - I've 20 years of IT and office admin experience and I can't get a job. Why? Well I saw one company advertising for an Admin post, an IT post, a Marketing post and for a PA. No that wasn't four jobs, that was one job combining skills that don't normally go together. I've applied for jobs that turn out to be nothing like what's been advertised and for ones in which I've been deemed too old and/or overskilled.
If it's a choice between employing someone young that you're not legally obliged to pay as much as someone older; or someone with no skills (or long-term unemployed) who has to take whatever shit the job shovels at them who would you take?
Yet according to good old George this is all our own fault. But is there a way around this, possibly.
Consider the local councils creating two 4-hour shifts a day over the whole week. Someone doing three shifts for the ~£70 a week in benefit would be on minimum wage. Given that technically they're already paid by the government why not work for the government?
As the local councils are already cutting staff etc. it's not really going to affect full-time staff and may require more managerial positions to oversee the 'community' workers. At the same time we'll see a reduction in litter, graffiti as well as tidier verges etc.
Except that's not going to happen as that would be an expansion of government over private enterprise. Far better to make people work for free for privately hived off services and charities than for the public sector.
Not the best of times for UKIP. With two members elected to the Worcestershire County Council within the Wyre Forest district one resigns due to comments they made on Facebook and the other dies. That means two new elections and while anyone's death is not a pleasant occurrence it's possible to learn from this experience regarding cost and blame for the by-elections.
Still popping up in the news are the tales of the big UK companies who barely pay any of the 20% corporation tax on their profits; nothing new their. What did catch my eye were those trying to justify it.
The Shuttle has printed the attendance record for our district councillors, two councillors don't appear for some reason (Paul Harrison and Adrian Sewell) and there are two caveats with regard to Tracey Onslow's Maternity leave and Jim Parish's heart problem, but the figures can still be analysed without that being too much of a hindrance.
Ministers just can't help themselves can they? They talk about a radical overhaul of the GCSE grading system and all they mean is converting 2 or 3 levels of grade into 4. What a pointless exercise in futility.
They can't even work it out for themselves:
so that rather than having A*, A and B, you achieve 1, 2, 3, 4, and it might be the case that 1, 2, 3, 4 cover the band of achievement that is currently A* and A.So a 4 grade is a B wait no a 4 is an A-? Which makes a B a... B? The idea seems to be that greater differentiation at the top will allow better comparability between the 'high achievers' and between different exams. No it won't. It's simply adding two more grades into the system.
The results are in and the first thing I see is that as per usual none of our elected representatives from the district managed to garner more than 50% of the vote in fact only two managed over a third. As turnout was also less than 50% in each ward we are once again in the position of having people in positions of power with about a quarter of the people stating that they wanting them there.
The biggest upset to the status quo has been the rise of UKIP who batted at the 20% mark and got some wins. Surprising was the fall of the Liberal (not Liberal Democrats) who normally do so well in the district elections only managed to get Fran in for St Chad's. Labour managed to claw in some votes, but seemed to be getting tied with ICHC and the aforementioned UKIP.
Unsurprisingly the Conservative party did well, but it's clear they lost votes to UKIP and ICHC
Full results with percentages below winners highlighted in colour
It's the county council elections next week, but something's missing. We've got the battle bus, the leafleting/canvassing and the pro-Con bleatings in blogs;. but where's all the rhetoric and finger-pointing in the letters page of our local newspaper? Normally at this time we've a member (or candidate) for Party A blowing their own trumpet over something they've done while at the same time Party B is highlighting the failures of Party A and how they'd be so much better at sorting things out.
But it's all gone quiet.
Have they all finally grown-up? Have they realised that the general public see through this transparent politicing; or has the Shuttle got a new policy on such blatancy?
Whatever the reason it's quite refreshing. It also means I can do something a little odd and ask "What does the county council actually do?"
In the wake of Baroness Thatcher's death the song "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" is topping the UK download charts. As a service to its listeners the BBC plays the songs currently in the chart. The Daily Mail is foaming at the mouth over this.
Obviously not paying attention to the Daily Mash's guide; the media is still flogging tins of Asda cornbeef. What has been interesting is playing compare and contrast to both 'sides' of the what did you think of Thatcher debate.
Between the extremes of paens from ft.com and the purile "Ding Dong the witch is dead"'s; is it possible to examine the policies enacted during Baroness Thatcher's term of office?
Negative Equity seems to be the bête noire of a certain newspaper - anytime house prices start to drop out pops the headline of "millions in negative equity trap" by itself this wouldn't be a problem; except that for some strange reason politicians and a fair chunk of the population seem to believe what they're saying.
So what is negative equity and why is it such a concern?
What with all the wrong-doings being levied at the press it would seem to be an odd question to ask whether the industry requires regulation, however given the exact nature of the wrongdoings it's rather more pertinent that it first appears.
I've just been told a tale of parking at night in Worcester. It seems in a least one car-park (Copenhagen Street) the charges have been altered for a particular period. For 1 hour the charge is £1.20, but for the period 7pm-9pm the charge is only £1.00.
So if you arrive between 6pm and 7pm and wish to use the car-park until 9pm how much do you pay?
It's been kicking around for some time, but a story in the Shuttle shows the sheer idiocy of the government's "under-occupancy" benefit reduction commonly referred to as "bedroom tax". A disabled man uses the spare bedroom for his dialysis machine yet may face a cut as it's an unoccupied bedroom and thus lose his home.
How truly screwed-up is this plan? I'll go through it point by point.
Seriously is this some sort of test? 'No I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to refer to their union as a marriage nor should they be allowed to have religious trappings at their ceremony' Um why not?
From the Shuttle we sadly learn that our very own MP is voting against this proposition because
"As a broad indication of the responses I have had - and I have had about 300 letters on this - those against equal marriages outnumber those in favour by about 100 to one"He also happily gets into a muddle with
"I suspect that I share the views of many people across Wyre Forest on this subject. It is not something that people seem to be clamouring for. I have made no secret that this is something that I am broadly neutral on."
"While most people seem ambivalent about the issue of same sex marriage, those who do have an opinion feel passionately about it. They are very concerned about the implications."In other words I should listen to the shouty people because they're shouty. You do realise how laws work in this country? They're negative, so you can do anything unless the law says you can't. So by continuing a negative law stating that such partnerships can't be called marriage etc. you're not being neutral; you're condoning the existing state.
With talks over the Falklands up pops the news that Argentina won't have any discussions if the current inhabitants are present; Britain on the other hand is insisting they be able to participate. So that's Argentina determining that the current population shouldn't be have any say in their own future - nice one.
So that's a big +1 in Democracy to Britain. Or at least it would be if we all didn't know the only reason we want them there is because they're all pro-British. If they'd suddenly turned pro-Argentina we'd be the ones trying to keep them out with Argentina insisting on their presence.
It's good to see an MP introducing a "Welfare Cash Card" system simply to look for the reactions in the House.
The 'right' seem to stumble caught between their own policies of reduced government interference and their vote-grabbing rhetoric of demonising of welfare recipients. The 'left' take the reflexive stance of evil 'right'; while those supposedly in the middle scratch their heads and wait to be told what to think.
What appears to be missing is how exactly it's supposed to work and once again highlights our current masters' lack of technological knowledge or implementation.
I was amused last night by the Conservative Party Political broadcast; there they were happily citing figures of much better they've made the economy. Unemployment is down, more jobs have been created etc. I'll deal with that in another entry. For this post I'll deal with their claim that they've reduced the deficit, for the record it's perfectly true, but I think there are some out there who don't quite grasp what the deficit actually is particular those shown in the broadcast. I also think it's in the best interests of all the political parties that people don't understand it either. To hopefully remedy that here's a simple explanation.
Ah good old Dave has said he'll give the country a referendum on whether we should leave the EU or not. Yay everyone get ready to vote... or not because this referendum isn't going to be held now or even in the near future it's going to be held sometime in the next Parliament in 2017 only after the discussions have taken place as to the UK's role in the EU and, of course, only if the Conservatives win the next election. Oh and presumably only if Cameron remains Prime Minster and nothing has happened in the four years between his promise and the event itself; or if they just decide not to bother.
