Tory Nannies Rampant

Labour will be smiling tomorrow.

A bad week ends well. After a very dodgy poll in the Daily Mail today there will be a clutch of polls tomorrow giving the Tory lead as seven points. That's hung parliament territory. But a truly remarkable poll in the News of the World gives Labour a one point lead where it matters most in the marginals. A previous poll in the vital marginals told a similar story.

Today had a different feel to it. There is backlash against the Tory's foolish declaration not to increased NICs. So that leaves them with increased taxes or VAT. Will 100 fat cat bosses denounced a VAT hike as a 'tax on jobs'? 

The Tories are passionately against tax hikes, they have beaten the flogged horse of efficiency savings to death, so VAT is all that is left. That deadly accusation will be levelled at them later in the campaign. Watch them wriggle.

The long promised marriage tax boost went phut. A three pound bribe was rightly given the raspberry by all. Even the Evangelicals will not be happy because it will be seen as an incitement to more civil partnerships. Few married couples are impressed by the pittance on offer. The unmarried are irritated by this pathetic try to socially engineer them into marriage. This is the Tory Nanny State rampant! 

The Tory droop is luminous. Cameron looks shallow and devious. Gordon is quietly reasonable. The LibDems accurately spot patronising drivel. The Tories are faltering. Long may it continue!

Comments

[Whistler Flights]

Great idea for a blog. There are some great topics to discuss in there.I’ll be sure to check back!

[HuwOS]

Well, first of all I am not going to specify any party or candidate.

But
It is clear that alternating voting between two parties with fundamentally the same policies is not going to get them to make any radical changes to their policies,
they will just try to outdo each other on what they think it is that people want, which is the same stuff just more so as with the IB situation in 2007.
Tories said they would get more people off it, Labour took action to get more people off it with ESA introduced and all new applicants being subjected to the job focused interviews straight away and those who were already on IB being brought into those by 2010.
The tories came back with the line that they would require proof for everyone including those already on IB without delay.
(The context being that an election was potentially on the cards in 2007)
When you eliminate GP evidence as well as the independent medical examination done for the DWP it is unclear what proof would be sufficient.
Ditto of course applies to the New Labour policy which settled on the job focused interviews to allow them to weed out as many as possible on IB.

If you find that no candidate or party represent your view pick one who comes closer to your view than the others.
Although it doesn't matter too much as long as they differ from the consensus, but we all know of parties that we wouldn't touch with a bargepole because we wouldn't wish to attach any kind of credibility to some of their policy stances.

That at least would offer some possibility of ending the current practice of the two largest parties of tracking each others policies and offering them with at best minor variations on the theme.

If you want them to change policies they have to see there are that those policies lose them votes.

As you know the votes do have to go to someone else, if the number casting valid votes just drops it has no effect on the parties.

In other words, vote for who you want to vote for, not just who you think will win the election if you vote for them.
Especially if in doing so you are simply reinforcing the belief that the public support their policies on welfare and don't want any kind of radical change, such as your favoured basic income.

People constantly say the politicians don't listen to them or pay attention to their views.
In 2005 we had an election, lots of people had said they opposed the war on Iraq, but when it came to the election they voted for New Labour and the Tories, the two parties who had supported it.
What message were they supposed to take from that?
Surely the only implication that could be drawn from it is that people did in fact support the war, so they kept on with it.
They do listen when it counts, and unfortunately the electorate regularly demonstrate that, while they may say one thing when it isn't going to matter they don't actually mean it.

Back to IB
We may say we don't want terminally ill people harassed about getting back to work, but if we vote for those who promise to require everyone claiming incapacity, to prove they cannot work, what is it we actually expect to happen?

[Kay Tie]

And who should I vote for then Huw?

[HuwOS]

"Of course, giving real choice to people isn't something the authoritarian state wants to hear. After all, if people made choices then what role for politicians to force choices on them?"

Your sterling advocacy for a basic income is slightly undermined by the fact that you intend to vote not just for a party that does not propose anything remote like it, but will be following the same policies on IB as the current government.

It's this kind of disconnection between what people say they want and what they actually vote for that leads to the situations you complain about.

[Kay Tie]

"Unfortunately a proportion of everyone is convinced that anyone on benefits of any kind is a scrounger and a benefit cheat by definition. "

Do you mean "some people think that all people on benefits are scroungers"? Or do you mean "everyone thinks that some people on benefits are scroungers"?

You know, it would be so much better if we could turn the welfare system on its head and put individual people in control of their own welfare. We could have a basic income, we could have a lifetime account that people could draw on to meet their goals (e.g. allow people to trade retirement age against education against time off for childcare). Then if everyone got this entitlement universally, there would be no means-testing, no question of "well he doesn't look crippled to me!", and all the judgement and nastiness could be taken out of the system.

Given that politics is merely accumulated judgement (usually distilled prejudices) this would have wonderful effects on all of us. It would allow "mind your own business" to come back into the English lexicon, for a start.

There would be no "scroungers" by definition. And terminally ill people could make the choices about how they put their own affairs in order without encountering barbarous bureaucracy. People who developed their intellect later in life could go to university without the dreadful loans system. People who had a steady career could retire early. People who have a family could take time out to bring up their kids and retire later.

Of course, giving real choice to people isn't something the authoritarian state wants to hear. After all, if people made choices then what role for politicians to force choices on them?

[HuwOS]

"Isn't kind of an academic point whether people are capable of working or not when there are so few jobs for them to do anyway? "
It would be if that were really the point
but it isn't, there's money to be saved by cutting the numbers on IB.
New Labour and their eternal friends and allies the Tories sing from the same songsheet on that.

No one of course objects to people who are genuinely ill and unable to work as a result getting appropriate care and support, at least that's what everyone says.

Unfortunately a proportion of everyone is convinced that anyone on benefits of any kind is a scrounger and a benefit cheat by definition.

So they see figures, they don't believe them because they don't like them
and Tory and New Labour policy on it suits their preconceived notions.
Mind you then they get annoyed by the easily foreseen as opposed to unforeseen, consequences of genuinely seriously even terminally ill people being forced into doing meaningless job focused interviews under threat of losing their benefits.

[Kay Tie]

"Doesn't matter how many jobs *were* created; they're not there now, that's for sure."

We need Gordon Brown to commit to planting more Job Trees. Because apparently that's where they come from: the Job Tree. They fall like ripe pears, giving joy to all who catch them.

Alternatively, Gordon Brown could stop making it a hazardous and costly effort to give anyone in the UK a job.

[DG]

Doesn't matter how many jobs *were* created; they're not there now, that's for sure.

And we don't have a Citizen's Basic Income yet, and no political party is proposing one.

[Kay Tie]

"Isn't kind of an academic point whether people are capable of working or not when there are so few jobs for them to do anyway? "

Gordon Brown was boasting at how many more jobs there are (although he wasn't keen in the point that nearly all of them have gone to immigrants).

A Citizen's Basic Income at least makes it worthwhile to take a part-time job.

[DG]

Isn't kind of an academic point whether people are capable of working or not when there are so few jobs for them to do anyway? All that will be achieved by taking people off incapacity benefit and onto JSA is poverty - by every party's admission, JSA is not enough to live on, and people who've been on the sick for 10 years plus are going to find it really, really hard to get a job. It was hard enough for my partner after 8 years off to bring up our l'il un.

(Was nice to meet you on Saturday, Paul)

[HuwOS]

It was bothering me whether 2.6 million was actually 10% of the working population.
So I thought I would check.
Then I realised I hadn't been doing my calculations based on working age population so apologies for that.

So I am taking my working age population figures from here
https://almanac09.ukces.org.uk/context/A5/Forms/AllItems.aspx

In 2007 when I think the 2.6m figure for those on IB comes from, the working age population was appx 37.9 million for UK.

Which would make the total on IB at the time roughly 7.0% of the working age population.
Which is I believe, far enough away from 10% for the 10% figure to be wrong.

The cranmer blog figure of 800,000 is a figure widely reported in June 2008.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/800000+claim+decade+of+incapacity/2295582

"Government figures showed 806,630 claimants - nearly a third of all those who claim incapacity benefits - have received the allowance for more than 10 years."

According to these figures
the working age population for 2007
37.9 million
long term claimants (over 10 years) 806,630
Showing them to be appx 2.12% of the working age population.

It really would be nice to know the churn of those who receive benefits for less time, I've seen figures where between 30% and 45% stop claiming after 6 months, and we know nearly a third are over 10 years but the breakdown of the rest could be interesting
are they completing in 12,18,24 months or longer.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find information on those.

Perhaps a suitable comparison is a general one
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/15/42699911.pdf

"around 6% of the OECD-wide working-age population collecting disability benefits in 2007"

So our 6.9% is definitely higher than the OECD average for the same year, US and Canada seem to be in the region of 4.1% to 4.3% and Hungary, Sweden and Norway weigh in at over 10%.
Out of 27 countries, the figures for 10 have remained stable over the last 10 years, 5 have reduced and 12 have increased, we are one of the stable ones.

I had a quick look at the US SSDI federal programme but to be honest it gets pretty awkward as soon as you try to make comparisons to our ESA and while many/most might say everything I have written should have been left out of a blog comments section, that level of attempted comparison definitely should.

[HuwOS]

Darn the bracket on the cranmer blog link prevents it from working
here it is again

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/10/conservatives-target-26-million-on.html

Obviously I would have preferred official figures and despite his antagonism there is no way we can take the figures he gives as being definitively accurate as we don't know his source, but you do what you can with what you can get.

[HuwOS]

Yes it is obvious that it does not serve the interests of the sick and needy, and it is a result of changes they made to a system that was already being reviewed and tested and pushed, with new claimants having fallen year on year for at least 7 years,
When back in 2007 they reacted to Tory suggestions and announced the ESA with the plan for everyone to be targeted for everyone on IB prior to 2008 to be hit with work focused interviews by 2010.
At the time,
"Conservatives say they are determined to make all claimants - including existing ones - prove they qualify for the £81-a-week benefit."
Which obviously leads to the same situation that MacMillan report and that you decry as everyone should, where terminally ill people are being treated shamefully.

Incidentally, people on long term disability benefits number around 800,000 (claiming for over 10 years) in the UK
(at least according to this guy, who appears anatagonistic enough to benefits that its likely to be the biggest number he could find - http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/10/conservatives-target-26-million-on.html)

Which assuming the figure is just for Wales and England it would be out of a population of roughly 50 million and I reckon that makes it about 2% of the population claiming long term.

The U.S. reckons 12% of its population have severe disability
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010102.html

of which 43% of those of working age are in employment.

Now unfortunately this census page does not give the opportunity to compare like with like
so while we know what percentage of those severely disabled that are of working age are employed and therefore the corollary, what percentage are not.
They don't seem to provide figures for what percentage of the population that are of working age and severely disabled for us to get what percentage of the population are severely disabled and unable to work.

But equally there is nothing to suggest that a figure of 2% that we have here is excessively high.

But it would be very interesting to know if our figures are vastly different from other Western countries, especially those, such as the US, with the reputation of being incredibly obnoxious and uncaring to those in need of anything smacking of welfare.

[Kay Tie]

"Then no one can or should expect the examination to be anything other than a pretence with the purpose of validating beliefs held without any basis."

Not at all. "I don't believe" is not the same as "I believe that not". The former is skepticism. The latter is belief, perhaps based on faith.

I think it is a hallmark of a civilised society to look after the sick and needy. I do not believe that is what this Labour government is doing. It is obvious that they are not if the Macmillan Trust is right.

[HuwOS]

"It's worthy of an investigation, questions, no? Because to say that in a supposedly healthy population a tenth of the people are disabled either defies the health statistics or it defies the definition of disabled."

It's always worth looking at any policy or programme for effectiveness and benefit.

But when your starting point is
"I don't believe that..."
Then no one can or should expect the examination to be anything other than a pretence with the purpose of validating beliefs held without any basis.

The fact is that we are not starting from a point where people have previously simply been making an assertion of being disabled.
There has all along been a requirement for independent medical verification.
It is surprising that some people feel that their unfounded beliefs are more likely to be correct.

If at any one time 2.7 million people are claiming incapacity, it does not for example mean that they are the same 2.7 million.
Of interest would be how many people and what percentage of claimant claimed IB or ESA short term.
I understand that the figures were anywhere between 30-45% of claimants ceased claiming after 6 months, but I have no idea what it might be for a year or 18 months.
And in the horrible case of terminal disease how many claiming incapacity are in that grouping.

I have absolutely no objections as I say to looking at and reviewing programmes but not just to find ways of getting people off the lists. This presumption that some have that anyone claiming from the state is skiving is the kind of thing that leads to stupid and cruel situations where the terminally ill are being forced to undertake work focused interviews and the like.

I suppose cancers can suddenly and unexpectedly go into remission, but it does not justify the approach.

[Kay Tie]

"If you or I were in government we might turn for advice and evidence to people who actually know rather than spouting off the top of our heads that because it doesn't suit us it simply cannot be true."

It's worthy of an investigation, questions, no? Because to say that in a supposedly healthy population a tenth of the people are disabled either defies the health statistics or it defies the definition of disabled.

I do know that the Tories started to classify people as disabled in order to get them out of the unemployment figures (and the unemployed were happy for this since they got a little more money). Would it be too much to expect that this mendacious government to not just continue but accelerate this programme?

"If you or I were in government we might turn for advice and evidence to people who actually know"

Yes, but we aren't in government are we? A corrupt cabal is in government, once that turns to experts and scientists and bribes them into agreeing with its preconceived beliefs, the era of policy-based evidence. So we cannot trust a single thing this government says (although I have some faith in the ONS, particularly now that it has grown a spine and feels able to admonish the Chief Liar - a man who makes Tony Blair look like an angel of truth).

[HuwOS]

See there you go again KayTie, wanting to have your cake, eat it and still have it.

If two parties, have fundamentally the same policies and you are happy to call one, in this example the tories, right wing, then logic dictates you must call the other by the same name.

The tories have over the last 13 years accused New Labour of stealing their policies.

So are you saying the tories are left wing or not?

"Do you really think that a tenth of the working population are disabled? "
The question is not do I think or do you think that this is or is not the case.
If you or I were in government we might turn for advice and evidence to people who actually know rather than spouting off the top of our heads that because it doesn't suit us it simply cannot be true.

[Kay Tie]

"He's right wing so he pushes that message, the government are right wing so they go along with the same view and you criticise them for being socialists."

If you want to call Labour "right wing" and torture the very definition, go ahead. You should know that there isn't a single left wing government in history that hasn't been brutal to people.

Oh, and there are 2.6 million people claiming disability in this country. Do you really think that a tenth of the working population are disabled? Of course, you will no doubt continue to torture the English language and claim it to be so. Perhaps the Great Flower Petal Disaster of 2009 claimed many more victims than hitherto thought.

[HuwOS]

Yes KayTie, the right wing are keen to believe that anybody on incapacity benefit (or any benefits at all) is really some scrounger and so push and push for them to be pushed,tested and retested in an attempt to make them give up on being helped at all, or to just simply deny them the help they need.

As your current hero of the hour, David Cameron said in 2008, with the same amount of evidence to back it up as you prefer, that being none at all.
"I don't believe that there are nearly half a million young people in Britain with a disability which prevents them from doing any work at all"

He's right wing so he pushes that message, the government are right wing so they go along with the same view and you criticise them for being socialists.

They are fundamentally the same,
hard not to notice that, when the tories have spent the last 13 years accusing them of consistently stealing their policies, but you of course choose to vote for one or the other because despite declaring yourself for principles that neither of them support, you are simply a fairly standard example of a right wing hypocrite.

[Kay Tie]

Look at the dirty tricks from Labour on cancer, the claims about other people (which aren't even true). Then look at what they actually do to cancer patients:

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Aboutus/News/Latest_News/Macmillanslamscruelbacktoworktestsforterminallyillcancerpatients.aspx

No, not even the Nasty Party, but the Cruel Party.

[Kay Tie]

Are you trying to re-enact the plot of Benjamin Button, Huw? The older you get, the more childish you become.

[HuwOS]

Being accused by KayTie of lying is on a par with being accused by George W. Bush of being inarticulate or possibly in his case, antidisinarticulate.

[HuwOS]

"You've said lots of things before. Very few of them are true. You continue to repeat these things. They remain untrue, despite repetition."

Your statement would be true if you were applying to yourself as has been demonstrated on comments on this blog time and time again.

[Kay Tie]

"Your concept of liberty KayTie is as I said before, that of a toddler thwarted, alternately whining, crying and throwing tantrums when you don't get your way."

You've said lots of things before. Very few of them are true. You continue to repeat these things. They remain untrue, despite repetition.

[HuwOS]

"Comments like that suggest that you don't even understand what liberty is. Perhaps you should lose it for a while."

Your concept of liberty KayTie is as I said before, that of a toddler thwarted, alternately whining, crying and throwing tantrums when you don't get your way.

Your second statement is indicative of your true belief that liberty is to serve you alone and not for the likes of those who don't agree with you.

[Kay Tie]

"But your fears about Labour are based on wild exaggerations."

And that couldn't possibly also be true for the Tories, could it?

[Kay Tie]

Perhaps the "progressive" people here would like to suggest what is progressive about any proposals of the left? Bear in mind, anything done before is not "progressive" but retrogressive. What is there new, rather than old, that you are proposing?

[Kay Tie]

"Comments like that suggest that if you did not call yourself liberal you could be the next Republican president of the USA."

Comments like that suggest that you don't even understand what liberty is. Perhaps you should lose it for a while.

[Paul Flynn]

No Dave. Neither I nor anyone else will take up any 'offer' to get us to retire. It's far too late for that. But your fears about Labour are based on wild exaggerations.
There is only a simple choice in Newport Wet -me or a Tory. I have just read the leaflet from the Tory Candidate. It says nothing. No ideas. No policy. Nothing about his lack of any connection with Newport. Read it and tell why there should be a change of MP here.

You have got it all wrong on expenses. I was named one of five 'expenses angels' by the Daily Telegraph and my claims have been among the lowest in Gwent and the UK. We have to have a second home and it has to be paid for. It's essential to do the job. What's wrong with that? The offenders are those who have claimed for their main homes. That's wrong.

[HuwOS]

"other than taking progressively more and more of our liberty"

Comments like that suggest that if you did not call yourself liberal you could be the next Republican president of the USA.

[HuwOS]

There you go,

You think of yourself as Liberal so cannot see why it would be an insult,
But when you conglomerate everything to the left of rightwing into one concept and then insult it all, you are contributing to exactly the kind of meaningless namecalling that passes as political debate in mainstream US politics.
The result of which we already know because it has already happened there, where you will find anyone calling themselves liberal being also lumped into the same imaginary grouping that you so despise.

[Kay Tie]

"Concatenating Marxist, Socialist, Left wing and Liberal into one imaginary concept and framing the debate to make the far right appear to be the centre, or center as they would say."

I've never understood why "liberal" is an insult. Of course, the word is widely mis-used by the Democrats: they are not by any measure liberal. Kind of like the word "progressive" is mis-used here in the UK. There's nothing progressive about Labour or the left (other than taking progressively more and more of our liberty).

[HuwOS]

Gods Kaytie, you claim they are a mess but everything else you say is as if you are determined to have an American style system where right wing parties accuse other right wing parties of being left wing.
A nation where a serious candidate for president will call another candidate a "card carrying liberal"
and still end up getting elected.
Concatenating Marxist, Socialist, Left wing and Liberal into one imaginary concept and framing the debate to make the far right appear to be the centre, or center as they would say.

Carry on with your pepsi or coke view of politics, after all its not like it can do any harm.

[Kay Tie]

"KayTie as no one on the centre right or centre, never mind left of centre considers New Labour to be socialist by any definition you will find that the comment that aligns so closely with your bizarre views on the current government, and which considers the right wing they represent to be hard line socialist"

Oh dear, you mean there's worse to come when Labour moves further to the left? Oh dear, if this level of mendacious social engineering is happening under "right wing" Labour then I dread to think what's around the corner.

[Kay Tie]

"Why were you not amazed KayTie by the cheap cynical ploy of David Cameron on cancer drugs suggesting a Tory Government would pay drugs held back by NICE?"

It was cynical. But at least it was positively cynical. If it had been Labour-style he would have headlined it "Labour want people to due through lack of cancer drugs" - almost exactly what Labour did say.

[dave]

some great comments.
though i hate to admit this katy and huw make very good and valid points.

i am an undicided voter,not siding with any one party but this election so far has turned me off labour and the conservatives or the neo-cons as most see them.

labour have failed on so many issues that anyone voting for them would probably vote whatever they did and if they do get back into power i fear they will finish off this country the next time.
probably giving up our sovereignty to brussels will be their next betrayal of this country.
has there ever been an incompetent,wasteful,untrustworthy,undemocratic,dictatorial,corrupt party.

the conservatives are feared by most working class people because of their last stint in government.they seem no different today in their thinking or actions.

paul might be a voice sometimes attacking his own party but what difference does his lone voice make.

child poverty growing under labour,less money spent on welsh kids education than the rest of the uk,more people in fuel poverty,social mobility decreasing and the gap between rich and poor growing.just a few things paul and his party have failed to address and reform that affect the majority of welsh working class people.

maybe i am wrong paul but what have you done that warrants my vote?

labour whips are encouraging mp's over 65-nicknamed walking by-elections to quit so gordon brown can parachute allies into safe seats.
those who comply could be handed a seat in the house of lords as a sweetner.

will you take up this offer paul?

one thing that upsets me is the expences claims made by mp's.
no one really being made accountable.
without trust and accountability our political system is a failure and trusting mp's to put this right will just make things worse.
i feel paul abused his expenses and made claims that should never have been paid to him.
how kitchens,bathrooms,decorating,building,flooring,cleaning flooring,soap holders etc were legit beggars belief.
you took the michael.you attcked other mp's for their claims but saw no wrong in your own claims.
i dont see you as an honourable person and would like to see you retire.
you've had long enough to make a difference and failed in my eyes.

the claim for a new electoral system is vital for proper democracy in this country.
this has been promised many times before and not materialised.it is once again being promised by the parties. probably more lies again.

[HuwOS]

The New Labour government and the Tory opposition, voted for unjustified and illegal, aggressive war against Iraq.
The result of which has been up to one million Iraqi deaths by reasonable measures, but tens and hundreds of thousands of deaths by the self serving "estimates" of the criminals involved.

They both support continuing to occupy Afghanistan and kill its people in their ongoing campaign to keep poppy growing and heroin production at all time highs.

But by all means, let people's decision on which one of these two groupings with blood dripping from their hands to vote for be whether or not it was polite to raise the issue of how the other side would improve or harm treatment for cancer patients by direct mail to people they estimated would most care about how cancer treatment was provided.

[Paul Flynn]

Why were you not amazed KayTie by the cheap cynical ploy of David Cameron on cancer drugs suggesting a Tory Government would pay drugs held back by NICE? If they approved of all cancer drigs, Big Pharma would jack up the price even above the present rip-off level and the the drugs would again be unaffordable.

[HuwOS]

"A comment under the Cancer Leaflet article in The Times:
This is a regrettable accident. But the need to ensure the continued progress of socialism is the overriding issue. Accidents must be accepted as inevitable but unimportant, when seen in the context of History being achieved.""
- this was the comment from the paper

"This is the bedrock belief of the left in the Labour Party: the dubious ends justify the nasty means." - this is KayTie's comment on the comment

KayTie as no one on the centre right or centre, never mind left of centre considers New Labour to be socialist by any definition you will find that the comment that aligns so closely with your bizarre views on the current government, and which considers the right wing they represent to be hard line socialist, was clearly written by someone who is like you on the outer fringes of reality in tight orbit around Thatcherite mania.

But on the other hand, fair play to you, very few people have your talent to make sweeping statements with no basis and an ability to take obviously nonsensical statements as absolute fact,
you really should be in politics yourself.

[Kay Tie]

"Anyone sending out 250,000 letters is bound to address some to those who have been suffering from cancer."

Labour hasn't denied targeting. It claims to use commercial databases to do the targeting. I'm sure that it's possibly to infer likely cancer sufferers from buying patterns. Or even by purchasing a mailing list from a cancer charity.

Even I am amazed at how far Labour will stoop. Truly it believes the ends justify any means. How can such people be allowed to govern us?

[Kay Tie]

"I'll check but very little is deleted from this blog. Nothing by me for months."

I suspect that it's a nanny filter. I think the writer of the story of his mother's death used the word "crap" (this is an American blog system, and the Americans are well known as overly censorious).

[Paul Flynn]

No I do not believe that the Labour party is what you say it is. Anyone sending out 250,000 letters is bound to address some to those who have been suffering from cancer. You conclude that they used confidential sources. That is not proved and would have been extremely stupid if they did. The whole spirit of the letters is crude and not something that happens in Newport.

I'll check but very little is deleted from this blog. Nothing by me for months.

[Kay Tie]

Twice I posted a heartbreaking comment from the Times article on Labour's dirty cancer tricks, a man who describes the treatment his mother received for her cancer, and her subsequent death from an infection. Twice it has been deleted. I suggest readers go to the original article and read it underneath because this blog is not going to permit the story to be told here.

[Kay Tie]

"You are also deluded in thinking that the Tories are not."

You make a mistake. I do not think such a thing. All politicians are nasty, and the Tories will become nastier in power. But we are talking superlatives: Labour are the nastiest party at present. Therefore they must be removed.

[Kay Tie]

"The only thing that could save this country is a new electorate..... not really a realistic possibility."

The best you can do is throw out this lot.

As it says in the Talmud: "if not now, when?" What do they have to do for you to vote tactically and remove them?

[Patrick]

"Voting against Paul would send a message."

The message would be that
'i don't like the fact that new-labour are tory and as i'm so stupid i will vote against one of the few people that has consistently tried to stop the slide to the right.'

You are right that labour are a nasty party.
You are also deluded in thinking that the Tories are not.

The only thing that could save this country is a new electorate..... not really a realistic possibility.

[Kay Tie]

Patrick, the Tories haven't stooped to Labour's level on dirty tricks (yet). Nor the Liberal Democrats. At the very least you could use your vote to punish the nastiest party. Voting against Paul would send a message.

[Tony]

It's worth considering the following :
Since 2001 Labour has run a budget deficit which was 2.4% of GDP and its now running at 11.8% of GDP - this cannot be continued
The Institute of Fiscal Studies say that published Labour plans imply spending cuts of 12% by 2014 with non-ring fenced departments seeing 14% cuts by 2012
..and even those cuts still give us a deficit of 4% in 5 years time
But under both main parties spending will bear the brunt of the effort to correct this deficit with the real difference being a year earlier in implementation by the Tories
So vote for these two and either way spending WILL bew cut and it will hurt - but what is galling is Brown saying that its all the fault of the global recession. It's NOT and he should admit that - just as the Tories should admit what they have planned

[Patrick]

Sadly it's simply a reflection of our sick nation that we have such a deplorable choice of polititical parties and policies.

Compared to the retail high street, the shops (parties), market their goods (policies) and mould them according to sales (votes).

We have a Tesco election where new policies loaded with finacial incentives are spun out daily like a school matron with a large bag of toffees.

Never mind illegal wars, pollution, overpopulation, science , climate change and anything else that might have any bearing on our species ability to survive into the next century.

Let's all continue to vote for cheap mass produced goods , more cash in our branded jeans,more wars on mineral rich countries, more cheap flights, more pollution, more housing , and more junk food to feed our obese faces.

Which party to vote for is now as relevant as which potato i am going to eat first at lunch!

[Kay Tie]

Paul is a lot more compliant recently. Very much puking out the Party line. Perhaps he'll break with it over these disgusting tactics.

[HuwOS]

"must wake up to just how horrible Labour has become"

People figured that out ages ago KayTie,
around about 1997,
that's why you have seen so many call them interchangeably the new Tories, or did you think those were always typos.
They are both on a par, right wing parties in the thrall of big business and therefore as corrupt as sin.

The Libdems have run with calling them the Labservatives for the very same reason.
Same basic policies, same lack of ethics, same attraction to the greedy and self serving.

Paul is an exception in as far as he has never gone along with New Labour, his greatest sin has been trying to see if some good could be rescued from what his party has mutated into.
He has opposed the very worst of those things the New Labour right have gone for, but in many of those cases its the Old Tories voting with their twins who have passed it.
Same policies, same corruption, 2 faces, see they they even manage to offer you choice.

[Kay Tie]

A comment under the Cancer Leaflet article in The Times:

"This is a regrettable accident. But the need to ensure the continued progress of socialism is the overriding issue. Accidents must be accepted as inevitable but unimportant, when seen in the context of History being achieved."

This is the bedrock belief of the left in the Labour Party: the dubious ends justify the nasty means.

[Kay Tie]

"Shallow and devious"

And this then?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7094308.ece

Labour uses personal medical data to single out cancer sufferers and sends them a personalised "Tories will let you die" postcards. I'm not sure which is worse: the abuse of privacy or the gutter politics. Can you imagine what it's like to have terminal cancer and receive one of these cards? Or to have your wife already dead and to receive one?

Truly Labour are the new nasty party. No doubt they crawl in the gutter with "good intentions" because anything is justified in keeping the Tories out.

Anyone who thinks Labour should rule over us must wake up to just how horrible Labour has become. Damien McBride and Gordon's other Forces of Hell are just the peak of an organisation with very deep roots into poison.

[HuwOS]

"No, because VAT is a tax on consumption."

And a drop in consumption has no effect on business, profits or employment, gotcha, absolutely clear point.

[Kay Tie]

"they have beaten the flogged horse of efficiency savings to death"

Oh, there's a lot of "efficiency" to come. All those Real Nappy Officers, Diversity Coordinators, Refuse Compliance Officers. Tens of thousands of these pettifoggers can be sacked. Of course, the Tories won't say this for fear of losing the votes of these pettifoggers (no real chance of that, of course, since they all vote Labour to preserve their useless jobs).

[Kay Tie]

"Will 100 fat cat bosses denounced a VAT hike as a 'tax on jobs'?"

No, because VAT is a tax on consumption. Has the Party machine kidnapped one of your family members and you have to repeat this drivel in order to get them back?