Quote of the day...

...has to go to Lord Hutton. [Contrary to an earlier version of this post, not the same Lord Hutton who conducted the David Kelly whitewash.]

Despite his pensions review recommending that public sector workers work longer and pay more to get less, there is at least part of him that realises the fallaciousness of his own proposals;

[The review] also busted some of the myths about these pensions. For example, that public service pensions are "gold-plated": the average pension paid to pensioner members is about £7,800 a year and about half of all public sector pensioners receive less than £5,600 a year. Overall, these pensions provide a modest – not excessive – level of retirement income. 

There is a gap between the public and private sectors in terms of pensions provision. But my own view is that we should be celebrating the high level of participation in pension schemes in the public sector, not seeking to follow the downward drift of pension savings in the private sector. Public sector pension reform must not become a race to the bottom. There would be hidden costs to the taxpayer in taking this course. 

The question now is, if he realises the myths and rejects the race to the bottom, just what is he playing at?

As PCS point out, although the interim report "support many of PCS’s assertions" to the contrary, the review is based on the premise "that public sector pensions are overly expensive and need to be cut back."

And yet still his proposals fly in the face of this point. If "the average pension paid to pensioner members is about £7,800 a year and about half of all public sector pensioners receive less than £5,600 a year," then why should they have to "pay more, work longer and still lose final salary payouts?" If the income pensioners receive is "modest," how is it also "unsustainable?"

Whatever myths Hutton may have "busted," and whatever neo-liberal dogmas he may "reject," Hutton is still building his proposals on the back of them. As PCS say, this is just "part of the government’s wider assault on the low-paid, the public sector and the welfare state."

Hutton is simply patting us on the back and offering us consolations before he gets stuck into the class war.

Quote of the day...

...goes to the Daily Mail, in their continual quest to out-sensationalise themselves;

As the son of a North London Marxist intellectual, you might expect Ed Miliband to have a less than conventional approach to traditional family values.

And the birth certificate of his 15-month-old son, Daniel, would appear to bear this out, as it includes everything except any mention of the boy’s proud father.

Although the section headed ‘Father’ is blank, Daniel’s mother Justine Thornton is named, along with her Manchester birthplace and profession, barrister.

Daniel was born on June 2 last year and the birth ­certificate was signed by Justine in Camden, near the couple’s London home, five weeks later on July 9.

There is no suggestion that Ed Miliband is not Daniel’s father and when asked why his name is not on the register, a spokeswoman for the new Labour leader suggested he simply had not had time to fill in the form.

This is not the only unusual aspect of his private life, as Mr Miliband is also the first leader of a major British political party to be living with his family out of wedlock. He and Justine, who will give birth to the couple’s second child in little over a month, are not married.

Are you not outraged? Do you not have the urge to grab your letter-writing pen and stab it at some paper in a paroxysm of rage, or yell ill-informed rhetoric into the phone at a talk-radio host? Are you not worried that society is crumbling around your ears and the anti-Christ is cometh?

If you answered no to any or all of the above questions, then you're sane. You're also a member of the far-left-Marxist-politically-correct-homosexualist-brigade and should be ashamed of yourself.

Of course, the Mail stands out as the lunatic fringe of the mainstream media. But its "go against our wishes and you instantly become the embodiment of all we hate" mentality prevails elsewhere. Hence how a fairly dull, upper middle class career politician who follows the traditional centre-right line about the "squeezed middle" class has been branded "Red Ed," stooge of the unions.

In reality, nobody who asks that unions (already reformist safety valves for worker discontent) show "restraint" about the cuts cannot seriously be labelled as a "red."

Not that this matters. The point is that serious efforts to defend the working class are preemptively attacked as "extremist" and "radical," and that Labour are unsubtly reminded to stay within the narrow confines of the mainstream political spectrum. Even social-democratic capitalism is worryingly "red."

To which, the "out of wedlock" story only adds a delightful sprinkle of nuttiness. As if we needed proof that the media was utterly out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people.

Quote of the day...

...comes from Joseph Ratzinger;

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the Twentieth Century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a reductive vision of the person and his destiny.

Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. 

The "atheist extremism," of course, is the Nazis. And as a Vatican spokesperson confirmed, as a former member of the Hitler Youth, the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about." Which is why we can only conclude that "Benedict XVI" is being purposefully dishonest.

After all, he must surely have been privy to Hitler's speech at the Reichstag on 30th January 1939;

Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration:

1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views (Einstellung), nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted....

The Churches are the greatest landed proprietors after the State... Further, the Church in the National Socialist State is in many ways favoured in regard to taxation, and for gifts, legacies, &c., it enjoys immunity from taxation.

It is therefore, to put mildly-- effrontery when especially foreign politicians make bold to speak of hostility to religion in the Third Reich....

I would allow myself only one question: what contributions during the same period have France, England, or the United States made through the State from the public funds?

3. The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service. It has not exercised any pressure upon the doctrine nor on the profession of faith of any of the Confessions. In the National Socialist State anyone is free to seek his blessedness after his own fashion....

There are ten thousands and ten thousands of priests of all the Christian Confessions who perform their ecclesiastical duties just as well as or probably better than the political agitators without ever coming into conflict with the laws of the State....

This State has only once intervened in the internal regulation of the Churches, that is when I myself in 1933 endeavoured to unite the weak and divided Protestant Churches of the different States into one great and powerful Evangelical Church of the Reich. That attempt failed through the opposition of the bishops of some States; it was therefore abandoned. For it is in the last resort not our task to defend or even to strengthen the Evangelical Church through violence against its own representatives....

But on one point it is well that there should be no uncertainty: the German priest as servant of God we shall protect, the priest as political enemy of the German State we shall destroy.

This quote comes from the site nobeliefs.com, which offers an extensive argument in favour of Hitler being a Christian. Albeit, of course, an extremely mental and evil one hardly representative of the faith. And the ability to make that distinction, incidentally, puts both myself and that site on the moral high ground over Ratzinger.

As a spokesperson for the British Humanist Association pointed out;

The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis that led to their extremist and hateful views or that somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.

The notion that it is non-religious people in the UK today who want to force their views on others, coming from a man whose organisation exerts itself internationally to impose its narrow and exclusive form of morality and undermine the human rights of women, children, gay people and many others is surreal.

It is, perhaps, an understatement to point out that The Pope Is A Dope.

Quote of the day...

...comes from the Daily Mail, claiming victory for pre-existing practices;

Almost one million people trapped by the Government’s tax fiasco are being reprieved.

The move is a relief for cash-strapped families and pensioners who had faced a struggle to meet the shock demand for underpaid tax.

In addition, a further 1.4million who owed more than £300 have been given three years to pay back what they owe, instead of just 12 months.

The decision follows days of anger over the fiasco, revealed by the Daily Mail last weekend. It was caused by problems with the introduction of a new computer system at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

It culminated in financial experts revealing that many taxpayers could avoid the repayments altogether if they exploited a little-known loophole in the tax law.

Yesterday, following a series of emergency questions in Parliament, the Treasury said it has decided to write off anybody’s bill if the amount they owed was £300 or less. The previous limit was £50 or less.

The problem is that the Mail has, in reality, achieved a round sum of absolutely fuck-all.

For a start, the practice of paying back underpayments over several years is long established. And to make matters even simpler, unless it is over £2,000 you can do it through the tax code rather than using cold, hard cash. A quick Google search, taking all of 30 seconds, confirms this through HMRC's PAYE Manual.

As to the £300 write-off for underpayments, that does indeed replace the previous limit of £50. However, as the blog HMRC Is Shite confirms, this was known about at least a week ago. That is, before news of the tax errors broke on Saturday, and certainly before the whirlwind of tabloid fury.

But, of course, these are just inconvenient facts. Acknowledging them would only get in the way of claiming "victory" over the tax man.

Speaking of said victory, Max Hastings deserves an honourable mention here for stating that people face errors in their tax bills because "HMRC’s butter-fingered staff totted them up wrong on the back of their envelopes."

The truth, as I detailed on Saturday, is quite different. But, then, you can't really expect any less from journalists whose job it is to find a stick with which to beat the working class.

Wanker.

Quote of the day...

...comes from the Daily Mail, who offer this headline;

Mother of 10 living in three-bed council home demands TWO houses next door to each other 'because we need more room'

Outrageous! Except, of course, that as usual the story is a non-story.

The "mother of 10" in question is actually a mother of seven, who also cares for three other children. Because the social housing supply in Bradford is "very limited," she currently "shares a bedroom with a son, daughter and partner."

The "demand" of the headline comes from this comment;

I can't cope, there's no room in the house for the kids. 

I have got four girls in one box room. I have had to put a partition up in one bedroom so we don't have boys and girls sharing together.

They are always fighting over the bathroom. 

We have taken on three extra kids and no-one's given us any help. Nobody helps at all and I don't get anything for free, not even free school meals. 

I have put my name down for a few places. When people have got ten kids they should knock two houses through for them.

Yes, that is an offhand comment in a quote she offered to the newspaper. From which the Mail constructed a "demand" to "officials" for which there is no substantial proof.

Yet this is perhaps the story with the most substance in today's edition. A half-baked pop at poor people padded out with gossip, absurd human interest stories, and a look inside Barack Obama's "thoroughly modern" oval office. And Mail Online is the most popular online newspaper site in Britain.

Proof that, in the propaganda war waged by the ruling class, apathy is more valuable than reaction.

Quote of the day...

...isn't a quote so much as it is a cartoon;

The only observation worth adding is that the exit is as much of a lie as the victory. Whilst the headlines declared that the last US combat brigade has left Iraq, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley has said that "we are ending the war... but we are not ending our work in Iraq."

The Americans and British "have a long-term commitment to Iraq." Hence why this "end" to the war leaves 50,000 armed troops behind.

Apparently, they "will only use their weapons in self-defence or at the request of the Iraqi government." But this would hardly be the first falsehood told to us by the US military. For one, the collateral murder incident springs to mind. 

This is not to mention the war crimes committed in Fallujah in 2004. And the fallout which people - including the newborn - continue to suffer as a result.

So, yes, for all intents the war may be over. But its effects will continue to be felt for many years to come, not just in terms of lives lost and physical suffering, but in the economic turmoil as the country continues to be carved up for capital.

The soldier who shouted "We've won. It's over. We brought democracy to Iraq!" deserves a medal for irony.

Quote of the day...

...comes from a mealy-mouthed Chris Huhne;

Now I did not come into politics to make cuts.

As a Liberal Democrat my top priority is a strong and fair economy – caring for the vulnerable, protecting the environment.

Something tells me he's in the wrong job. And, for that matter, the wrong party.

Nonetheless, we are supposed to feel sympathy for him and his ilk as they attack the working class "with care and with a heavy heart." After all, "the unavoidable cuts that are coming are Labour cuts."

Fucking spare me. 

For one, the cuts aren't "unavoidable." They're an ideological weapon weilded to shore up the ruling class.

If Labour was still in power, yes, we would still be facing them. But shouts of "Labour cuts" don't hold up any more than the reverse shouts of "Tory cuts" or "Con-Dem cuts" do. It doesn't matter what party's in power when it's the same class weilding the axe.

As I wrote yesterday, they are doing their best to blame the poor for capitalism's ills. This "may soothe their consciences, but it does nothing to address the real problems."

Take the latest proposals to use "bounty hunters" to crack down on benefit fraud. Dralienfromzog dissects the reality behind this over at Angry Mob;

You may notice that the figure of £5bn pounds keeps coming up. This is an interesting one as this is the figure for fraud and various errors that lead to over-payment. The actual figure for fraud is only £1.1bn.

But we all know that fraud is rampant – because the press keeps telling us about case after case of fraud; a quick search of the Daily Mail website reveals dozens of such stories.

Let us have a look at some of the facts (all of this data comes from the Department for Work and Pensions Official figures 2008-9, last complete set of data.):

Fraud: £1.1bn (0.8%), Customer error: £1.1bn (0.8%),  Official error: £0.8bn (0.6%)

The percentages are of the total benefits budget. So fraud is less than 1% of total benefits spending.

A couple of other interesting statistics worth noting:

• under-payment due to errors: £1.2bn (i.e. more than fraud)
• £10bn. The amount of unclaimed benefit that people are entitled to.
• since 2001, fraud has been reduced from 2.1% of the benefit budget to 0.8% (halved in cash terms)
• £15.2bn – the estimated loss to the treasury of Tax Evasion.

What’s my point in all this? I am not saying that benefit fraud is acceptable, it’s clearly not. What I am saying is that this is all part of an on-going narrative that paints anyone on benefits as a drain on society and probably a thief. It is cheap political points scoring at the expense of the vulnerable and that is sick.

East London charity Community Links goes further by explaining that the image offered by the media strays far from reality;

We regularly talk to terrified people who are about to be hauled in front of a Jobcentre advisor and quizzed about their claim. Their only source of income is at risk – that five minute interview could mean the difference between scraping by and being plunge into destitution. And they might only be there because a neighbour has fallen out with them and phoned the benefit fraud hotline, or they had a bit of paint on their hands at their last interview. These advisors, don’t forget, are the same people who are supposed to be supporting people into work.

Even those who are defrauding the system usually do so out of need, not greed – scraping together enough for Christmas or paying for repair of a boiler through a bit of informal work, for example. The structural problems with the benefits system that Iain Duncan Smith has identified, the ones which make it very hard to get into work and render the system so complex it borders on incomprehensible, must shoulder the blame for all the error and most of the fraud. The few cases of blatant greed make the headlines, but don’t reflect the reality for people we see.

At the same time, tax evasion costs the Treasury 15 times more than benefit fraud. And, as Dave Osler says over at Liberal Conspiracy, the cost of benefit fraud "is little more than small change in comparison with the £850bn spent on the bank bailout."

But, Huhne assures us, the government makes this "tough choice" to attack our class "with care and with a heavy heart." For "the national interest."

Fuck off, you Yellow Tory prick.