Herewith HMG’s bold master plan to fully seize the opportunities offered by new technology in government, whilst simultaneously heavily reducing actual websites, staff and cash. In one stroke this policy shall put an end to waste, open up brave new possibilities, and compeltely eliminate confusion. (more…)
This new poster bothers me. It looks like Cameron is in full headless mode now, and frantically trying to shore up traditional support to the right, as his support to the left comes under threat from Cleggmania. But what does this do to his carefully crafted image as a progressive Tory? (more…)
Still smarting that we’re not considered wholesome enough for a Cameron marriage tax break – my wife earns a few hundred quid too much – I was cheered a bit to see Sunder Katwala’s recent post on Next Left. It looks like we’re in good company. (more…)
I haven’t been a member of a Labour affiliated union for nearly ten years now – my current union don’t even have a political fund, let alone one that affiliates to Labour, but something really irks me about the latest Tory billboard – criticising Labour for taking union money (no, the one above is my take on it, not the original, which you can see here). (more…)
Satirical genius from Political Scrapbook, based on the Tories’ current poster campaign. This deserves to win the internet for today, tomorrow, and much of this week!
The sinister Tory billboards are back with a vengeance, and so are their online alter-egos. The current posters are coming in for a bit of flack for attacking a Labour policy that isn’t actually a Labour policy. Still, it’s a nice scary picture, so MyDavidCameron.com has morphed into MyToryTombstone.com, with some very funny takes on the dramatic picture and the message gaffe. Here’s my own contribution to the fun (click for bigger).
Thanks to Clifford for this week’s image challenge – A different take on Mr Cameron’s slightly creepy airbrushed bill board ads.
Here’s mine (click for biggie) – I reckon the Cameron illusion is all mad CGI skillz rather than airbrushing! I did get the right Cameron, right?
Anyways, you can see a bunch of other excellent attempts at this over at MyDavidCameron.com “Airbrushed for Change”.
Certainly impressed with the state of the art technology on MyConservatives.com!
I mean, being able to instantly automatically identify me as a wrong ‘un from my IP addy and targetedly refuse me access like this, whilst I imagine letting all the 2.0Tories straight in without any hiccups, that’s some mad skillz! Would expect nothing less from “probably the most advanced party political campaigning network of its kind outside of America”.
UPDATE 4/10/09: Here’s more on the story from El Reg. Admittedly much respect for the 404 pages though…
In which a young man setting out on a noble career finds that ultimately it’s easier to make living through a dishonest path than by staying true to his public. Any similarities between persons living or dead purely coincidental.
Hat tip Mark
Good spin for Redwood, getting the story of his wide-ranging policy review boiled down to just inheritance tax in the papers today, rather than coming over as an evil masterplan to work us til we drop, and then mortgage an unregulated timeshare to our remains. The structural flaws in the unreported iceberg seem to be getting bigger though, thanks to the Chancellor, the Work Foundation, the TUC, and even Railway Gazette.
Kicking off with the employment rights stuff that caused a stir earlier this week, the Work Foundation’s David Coates said:
“The UK is already a lightly regulated economy and there is no strong evidence to show that Mr Redwood’s proposals would increase our national prosperity. In contrast, it seems more likely that bad employers will exploit these measures to worsen the position of the most disadvantaged workers.”
The £14 billion saving from red tape looks pretty tenuous. Just dropping the minimum standards on employment rights won’t actually save money on the majority of jobs, for the simple reason that the majority of jobs exceed statutory minimum levels anyway. Redwood seems to have forgotten that there are a lot of decent employers out there, who wouldn’t want to jeopardise working relations by sinking to the depths that his changes would let them.
The people who would most likley see a reduction would be poorly paid, vulnerable workers with bad employers – the kind of people who need the protections most. There’s also less money to be saved in slashing the conditions of someone near the current minimum anyway – as meanness goes, it’s not even practical meanness.
Coates reckons Redwood’s economic analysis is pretty fundamentally flawed anyway:
“The OECD have made clear in their report, Going for Growth 2007 that the policy priorities for the UK are the reform of Incapacity Benefit, tackling basic skills problems, strengthening incentives for lone parents to return to work, investing in infrastructure and improving public service efficiency.
The deregulatory agenda has reached the end of the road. Other policy instruments must be used if the UK is to face the challenge of intensifying competition and rising skill levels in China and India, the emerging economic superpowers.
Most seriously, the proposals to withdraw from some key elements of European social policy are not consistent with the UK’s continued membership of the EU. Leaving the single market would do immense damage to British business. This would more than outweigh the supposed benefits of tearing up the Working Time Regulations “
The whole agenda on working time and the Social Chapter seems designed purely to pick a fight over Europe, regardless of its implications to the economy, and the TUC point out there even seem to be inconsistencies with Cameron’s earlier prononcements on flexbile and family friendly working, which draw heavily on working time rights.
And back to inheritance tax. It’s a middle England bugbear, even though it actually affects only a minority of the richest, and mainly the South East. The Express and Mail will get good campaign fodder out of it, but you could undercut much of the support by simply raising the exemption rate by another £100,000, and pegging it to house prices in the future. Straight off you’d lose most of the sting to voters without losing most of the income to the Treasury.
Myself, I’d rather see it left though, as it has a purpose wider than lining Darling’s pockets. Looking at the Express, you’d think this was the main thing holding people back from owning their own homes, but surely a braver case for it can be argued? Keeping assets from generation to generation entrenches income inequality, and is much more important a factor in taking home ownership out of most people’s reach. Waiting for your parents to croak just in order to get a house as part of a gated community in a sea of sink estates? Not the way I want to live.
