1. Announce you’re going to close 3/4 of government websites, claiming you’ll do away with:
   1. anything unco-ordinated,
   2. anything unnecessarily expensive,
   3. anything under-used,
      1. (in which case, said currently paid-up websites will presumably have to be broken up and re-developed into other sites or DirectGov – see 1.2)
   4. any vanity sites.
2. Announce all new websites will go through Frances Maude’s new senior committee, which will:
   1. decide if they’ll be useful enough to be allowed,
   2. decide if they’re usable and used enough to be allowed,
      1. (for which they will presumably have to quickly gain a lot of technical knowledge to make tactical judgements below their pay grade – see 1.2)
   3. champion centralised co-ordination in eGov web resources,
   4. have no remit over print and outdoor ad campaigns, as you obviously never get any kind of poor value there.
3. Immediately announce two new websites (admirably cheaply constructed), offering:
   1. a half-arsed show of consultation (see 2.1), and
   2. nice videos of George Osborne and Nick Clegg (see 1.4).
4. Replicate stage 3 in Facebook, claiming in an online chat with Mark Zuckerberg that actually building a website for stage 3 (as you did) would have been silly as it would have cost “millions if not billions”.
5. Call for exclusive use of the web in recruitment as it’s cost effective and transparent, even though:
   1. your proposal of cutting print job ads might make it harder for 30%+ of the population to access them,
   2. your idea that local people could investigate ‘non-jobs’ will mean jobs have to be spelled out in much more context to justify them to Have Your Say users (see 1.2).
6. Announce a 1/3 cut to DirectGov, the service which co-ordinates government web properties (see 1.1, 1.3.1, 2.3).

Phew! That all clear then?

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?

Their plans for tackling the deficit are going to throw tens of thousands of public sector workers on the dole just as soon as they can, and the resulting depression of consumer demand is going to make more businesses fold, and more people in the private sector unemployed. If they aren’t going to try to use public investment to grow us out of these precarious times, and are determined to risk a double dip recession, this can’t be the rhetoric for them to use on welfare.

Unemployment, is way less of a problem than under the 80s and 90s recessions, thanks to active government this time round, but it’s still a huge issue. People aren’t workshy scroungers, refusing the thousands of jobs on offer in a booming labour market – or at least the number who are refusing will be pretty tiny in terms of significant pots of cash to save towards the deficit. Why stigmatise people who’re unemployed in a recession for no fault of their own?

Cameron surely needs to consider this if he’s going to do well on his left. Fair dos for telling us straight (like Nick) that times are going to be tough – but this is telling us that he and his mates are going to kick us whilst we’re waiting for them to get better.

Hat tip Tim Ireland for the poster blank

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.

It’s supposed to cover civil partnerships too (might buy them a nice stay in a B&B), but Sunder thinks it will be hard for Cameron to find himself any beneficiaries there. Pensioners are likely to get a third of it – A very welcome boost on pensioner poverty, but would another £150 on winter fuel not be better targeting – or is divorce and anti-social behaviour amongst pensioners one of the main indicators of the Tories’ Borked Britain?

And then there’s the amount. Not enough to be a bribe, or to genuinely be of help to families – something that few people will get, and those that do get won’t notice. Shudder the thought it might be calculated to be the cheapest way possible to avoid the embarassment withdrawing the silly policy. As is stands it seems to fall squarely into the category of ‘pin money for wives who know their place”.

Sod Gene Hunt, it seems like Cameron’s taking us back to the 50′s.

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).

If the Tories are honestly able to believe Michael Ashcroft wants to give them his tax-dodge savings purely out of civic duty, rather than attempting to buy any kind of influence, it should hardly be too big a leap of faith that millions of union members might voluntarily give small change every month to Labour, collected through their unions.

It’s not because they want Derek and Tony to lean on Gordon in industrial disputes or that they think it will get them all a pay rise. It’s for the same reason that the unions started the Labour party. The party is a part of the labour movement, and it represents the interests of the ordinary working majority in the UK. Members of around a quarter of UK unions give funds to Labour in this way, and for this reason.

83% of Unite’s members seem to think that giving working people a stronger voice in politics is worth getting together and pooling a few pence a week. I think that’s pretty honest cash, that Gordon should be proud to be able to call on.

UPDATE 19/3/10: Carl has some good points on union party funding at Stronger Unions.

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”.

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

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.