Tory Whitehall crib sheet for attacks on poor and vulnerable

Great post stolen from Redbrick blog.
"From an anonymous correspondent

As welfare ‘reform’ and housing cuts bite ever harder, when do we reach the point where the government concedes that the hardship caused is an inevitable consequence of rebalancing the public finances and reducing the deficit? So far, they seem to be in deep denial.

This contrasts with the Thatcher era, because when she increased unemployment as a tool of economic policy, she at least admitted that the growth in joblessness was a price which was (on her reasoning) worth paying.

The Cameron government seems either to deny that there is any hardship or to blame anyone other than the ministers who have instituted the cuts. Whenever some new example of the horrendous effects of their policies (here’s a good example - Ed) is presented to them they have a range of stock responses.

We’ve been wondering if there is a standard Whitehall crib sheet for ministers. Well by sheer chance, we’ve been sent what looks like the housing and welfare crib sheet in a plain brown envelope.

In the interests of open government, here it is…

Say the cuts are avoidable. This is Eric’s favourite. The trick is to give the impression that all the cuts can be made painlessly by eliminating luxuries and sacking backroom staff. You can use his little list. Even the Prime Minister makes this excuse: at PMQs last week he accused councils of making high-profile cuts ‘to try to make a point’, not because they need to. Some people will believe him.

Blame the victims. This works well too. Extravagant housing benefit claims may only happen in a few isolated cases, but even so the press will lap them up, especially if they are large families, unemployed, migrants or – even better – all three. Give the impression that such claims make up most of the welfare budget. Whatever you do, don’t admit that over half of welfare spending goes to older people as they are seen as deserving of it. If talking about housing benefit, try to give the impression that it’s spent by the tenants themselves to fund their indolent lifestyles – whatever you do, don’t admit that the money goes to landlords who are pushing up rents because there are insufficient houses.

Use the keywords. We know it sounds boring, but you have to repeatedly refer to ‘scroungers’, ‘strivers not skivers’ and talk about ‘subsidised housing’ not council homes. This helps confirm the impression that most welfare spending is a waste of money. Suggestions for new and even more derogative terms are always welcome. IDS has made a good attempt to link welfare recipients in the public mind with drug addicts and alcoholics. Follow his lead.

Blame the previous government. It’s their fault we have too few homes. Focus on the fact that housebuilding in Labour’s last year was the worst they achieved, even though we know that was because of the credit crunch. Don’t admit either that (a) housebuilding under the coalition is on average 45,000 homes less per year than the output under Labour, or (b) that 2010/11 and 2011/12 were the two worst years since the war for English housebuilding.

Blame local government. So Westminster’s putting homeless families up in expensive hotels and Camden’s sending them to Coventry (or Leicester, or somewhere else absurdly far from London). Brilliant: we can say how stupid this is and tell them to stop, even though we know they can’t.

Don’t admit that policies to cut the welfare budget affect anything else. For example, some academics argue that cuts in benefits for private tenants mean that more of them will become homeless, or that more people will need accommodation with lower rents in the social sector. Deny that this will happen. If any evidence emerges that shows you’re wrong, under no circumstances must you agree with it. Better still, don’t read the evidence then no one can accuse you of knowing the facts but ignoring them. Alternatively, officials may be able to find an obscure or outdated source that on the surface appears to contradict the evidence: use it!

Deny that cuts are taking place. For example, is there any part of your budget that you have decided to protect, however small? Grossly exaggerate its importance. Take a lesson from Grant Shapps: every time someone said funding for homelessness was being cut and decimating services he would point to his department’s small fund for homelessness prevention, and claim that because it hadn’t been reduced then either services had been unaffected or – yes! – any cuts were local councils’ fault.

Apply a sticking plaster. It’s obvious to a fool that the scale of the welfare cuts must – in reality – mean massive hardship. Furthermore, Labour will find deserving cases (people dying of cancer, homeless ex-servicemen, that sort of thing). First, always offer to investigate the particular case, implying you might do something (even if you won’t). Second, point to the money that’s been set aside for special cases (e.g. discretionary housing payments). Never fail to give the impression that this is sufficient to deal with any genuine hardship. Mention the amount e.g. DHPs total £60 million in 2012/13. This will seem a large sum to the public even though it’s only a tiny fraction of the cuts taking place.

We’re dealing with it. Unfortunately some problems are so big and so obvious that you’ll have to pretend you’re doing something about them. For example, every fool knows builders have virtually stopped building. Given that the housing budget had one of the biggest cuts of all in the Spending Review there’s precious little we can do, but you must pretend otherwise. First, argue that output is going up even when it’s going down (NB. Don’t appear on Sunday Politics, choose programmes where they don’t do their research). Second, have some useful initiative available that sounds like it might solve the problem even if it’s far too small to make any difference.

Grant gave us NewBuy and FirstBuy, which both sound sufficiently impressive, but we might need to invent one or two more when people realise how inconsequential they are. Say we are selling more homes under right to buy as if this helps solve the problems, even if we aren’t and it doesn’t.

Joking aside, Richard Vize made the excellent point in the Guardian last week that Cameron and Co. are undermining local government and failing to prepare people for the depth of the cuts that are now hitting them – with much worse still in the pipeline. He says that ministers are ‘giving the impression that public services can indeed manage cuts without pain or profound change. They can’t.’ How can the coalition expect to be taken seriously as a government, if they make cuts on an unprecedented scale over a dangerously tight timescale, but refuse even to admit there might be consequences for public services?"

West Ham MP Lyn Brown (with badly broken elbow)

Picture is of Lyn Brown our West Ham Labour MP  who suffered a very bad fall on the steps of the House of Commons early this month.  She has broken her elbow in several places and has been warned that she may never recover the full use of her left arm.

Check out Lyn's column in the Newham Recorder here.

As Lyn herself admits it could have been a lot worse.  I am sure that she enjoyed the supportive text I sent her as West Ham CLP agent saying she should take more care of herself in the future and not rush about.  As Agent I am far too busy at the moment for a by-election!

 :)

It was a shame that some local Newham Tories posted a typically sneering, misogynist and unpleasant post on their blog.  But there you go - same old Tories, same old Nasty Party.

(Hat tip Picture - Newham Recorder)

The Coleman Diet and his Recipe for Disaster

 A link to this YouTube video was posted anonymously on my post here about the London Fire Brigade Strikes.  I must warn you that this video contains disturbing images of Tory London Assembly member and Fire chief, Brian "Cabman" Coleman, promoting I assume a new Boris and the Nasty Party diet cook book. 

Please do not view this video if you are eating, or planning to eat soon or are in anyway of a sensitive or delicate nature. 

You have been warned!

However, if you want to learn more about the real practical reasons why London Firefighters have been out on strike to try and keep the capital safe then brace yourself to get over the first 30 seconds or so...

Equality Matters – Tory attitudes to lgbt rights: Same old “Nasty Party”?

Cameron and his desperate allies for power within the current Conservative Party claim that they have changed and they are no longer the “Nasty Party” . They have become open and inclusive. I’m not too sure and perhaps the Tory Party attitude towards lgbt rights is I think a litmus test about the Tories and their attitude to equality issues as a whole.

Hat-tip thingy Leftfootforeward and Labourlists

Let’s look at the Tory Voting record on LGBT rights in the European Parliament. While the Conservative Party try to convince people that they are modern and compassionate, their elected representatives in the European Parliament consistently undermine the veneer to expose a homophobic and outdated disregard and disdain for the rights of homosexuals:

Tory MEPs voted with Jean-Marie Le Pen against the creation of the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European organisation that protects the rights of homosexuals from discrimination. (February 2008)

Cameron’s so-called ‘compassionate Conservative MEPs’ voted against a key report that would combat any form discrimination in the provision of goods and services, including on the grounds of sexual orientation. The report those MEPs rejected would ensure that the victims of discrimination were "automatically assisted in legal proceedings". (May 2008)

There was not a single Conservative MEP that voted for a European Parliament resolution calling for "worldwide decriminalisation of homosexuality" and an end to "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all sectors". (June 2007)

All Tory MEPs refused to support a resolution condemning homophobic and racist violence(June 2006)

They voted against including discrimination due to assumption or association in the horizontal equality directive (April 2009)

Most Tories abstained in the final vote on establishing a horizontal equality directive. Callanan, Hannan and Helmer voted against. The directive outlaws discrimination in providing equal treatment on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (April 2009)

The European Parliament voted to condemn a law in Lithuania, comparable to Section 28, and refer it for investigation by the European Fundamental Rights Agency. All of the Conservatives bar one abstained. Richard Ashworth, South East MEP, and the rest of the ECR group voted against. (September 2009)

Also, there's also Helmer's quote in the Real Tories, Real Words leaflet, " 'Homophobia' is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions" from his blog in July.

Tory MEPs including Tannock have repeatedly voted against an extension of gay rights including:

last month Tannock voted against a ‘motion of resolution’ condemning a law in Lithuania comparable to Section 28.

In April this year, Tannock abstained in the final vote on establishing a horizontal equality directive. British MEPs, Martin Callanan, Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer voted against the motion. The directive outlaws discrimination in providing equal treatment on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Tannock and Conservative MEP colleagues voted against a key report that would combat any form of discrimination in the provision of goods and services, including on the grounds of sexual orientation. But in in June 2006, Tannock and other Tory MEPs refused to support a resolution condemning homophobic and racist violence.

Michael Cashman MEP speaking exclusively to Left Foot Forward said, “Equality measures have to be adopted by the Member States unanimously. On the basis of the Tory voting record here in the European Parliament, it is clear that a Tory Government would use its veto and prevent Equality legislation ever seeing the bright light of day.”

To me one of the major Labour Government triumphs in recent years is that Labour has genuinely become the Party of Equality. Lots of more work needs to be done but we are on our way I think. This is not only a clear achievement now at risk but also crystal clear red water between us and the Tories.

Royal Docks Tory "lies, deceit and hypocrisy" over City Airport

While I don’t necessary expect political parties to conform to Marquess of Queensbury Rules while fighting local elections, I don’t think official Party leaflets should be telling lies or making personally abusive accusations either.

The latest official Tory leaflet being delivered in the Royal Docks by-election in Newham, East London is pretty dire and depressing for anyone who cares about local democracy regardless of Party.

This official A4 double sided leaflet has the main title “- SEE INSIDE FOR THE TRUTH AND LIES!” Inside indeed there is a headline that “Labour should say “sorry” over City Airport lies...” Strong stuff you would think. There is more. “Angry residents complained to Neil Pearce about Labour’s campaign of lies and deceit” (their emphasis). “Labour Councillors....are falsely claiming the conservatives want to expand the airport with and runaways.” (Not all that sure what that means in English?)”The National Party it has denied any plans”. “Neil (says)..., this desperate lies is a disgrace” etc.

So Labour is telling lies, is being deceitful and is a disgrace says Tory boy Neil?

On the same page as the accusation of lies and deceit they clearly imply that Labour Candidate Steve Brayshaw is complicit in these “lies” and that he is “untrustworthy” - see the “ITS A QUESTION OF TRUST?” headline about a planning meeting that Steve could not attend since he was teaching at the time in his college!

Many local Tories have got very excited about such matters – one of them has apparently even made a complaint to the Electoral commission regarding “false claims”.

So Labour claims that the National Conservative Party supports the expansion of City Airport are just lies and deceit then?

So why did the “The Times” (that well known socialist rag) report here “Tories clear the way for more flights from small airports”. This article was by the surely inconsequential figure - “The Times” Chief Political Correspondent, Sam Coates.

Let us now be crystal clear “The Conservatives said yesterday that they were willing to expand airport capacity in the South East despite the party’s environmental opposition to a third runway at Heathrow".

"Luton, City Airport or Southend could be allowed increased numbers of flights or an extra runway under the Tories” (my emphasis)

Tory Mayor, Boris Johnson is now a well known enthusiastic supporter of expansion at City Airport. While Tory GLA member Roger Evans has referred to the City Airport protesters as “Climate change Taliban”.

So the Labour leaflets that accurately reported that the Tories are in favour of increasing City airport capacity or even building an extra runway (despite this being difficult to see how) are not “false” it’s not “lies” and it’s not “deceitful” either.

So should those responsible for “City Airport lies” attacks say they are sorry to Steve and the Labour Party? I’m not holding my breath.

Actually I think the (deliberate) decision to personally attack and try to smear Steve and the local Party is a sign of desperation. They were not getting anywhere by any legitimate campaigns so they have decided to resort to plain old abuse.

Now, me getting on my blogging high horse and slating the 'orribble Tories is one thing, putting official Party leaflets out falsely calling your opponents liars and untrustworthy is just plain wrong and is not I think going to impress the electors of Royal Docks.

The only good thing it does possibly do is to make people wonder what sort of candidate Neil Pearce is if he feels he has to imply that his opponent is an untrustworthy and deceitful lair.

To me it just reminds us all that things haven’t changed all that much under cuddly Cameron and the Tories (not all of them) are still the “Nasty Party”.