- Secure the recovery
- Raise family living standards
- Build a high-tech economy
- Protect frontline services
- Strengthen community fairness
Okay, first things first - three of those are meaningless bumfluff.
Raising families living standards is one of those things that sounds good. Like, we should have a shiny unicorn for a pet. Sounds wonderful, but achieving it is unlikely - you'll end up with a rescued pony tottering about the garden wondering why you've stuck a papier mache horn on its noggin. Currently we're still in economic trouble - over half the economy is based on the public sector and GDP growth is being driven by inflation to an extent. In short, this 'recovery' isn't doing an awful lot for people,
Were Labour genuinely interested in raising living standards he'd start by raising the point where we start paying tax. The Lib Dems 10k level seems fine, and would mean we could bin quite of lot of those expensive tax credit systems too - thus actually making real savings.
Building a high-tech economy - we already have one. The problem is our schools are churning out quite a lot of low-tech people. You could build a marvellous high-tech machine, but if you need to import workers because your own home-grown employees can barely count beyond 10 and are slightly less literate than a badly shaved baboon, then you have a problem.
So unless he plans on converting London into Metropolis, this is powerpoint-generated meejabollocks.
Strengthening community fairness - another 'sounds good' idea, but one that starts to fall apart as soon as it's looked at it. Take this for example:
"People have got to know if they have a real complaint they will get a fast response," he said.So in other words, a whole new headache for the police and councils. The frontline police will have new orders from high on how to do things, new targets to achieve, meaning more rules, more paperwork and much less actual policing.
"And ultimately if they feel they have not been given satisfaction, they will be able to take a civil injunction themselves and that will be paid for by the authority."
And where that fails councils will have to fund injunctions. Now where will that money be coming from? Higher council taxes? Or reduced services?
Now on to the two that actually meant something.
Protecting the recovery - really? Along with Lord Lucan presumably, as he's nowhere to be seen either. We don't have a recovery, we have a listless bumping along the bottom like a fat kid on a space hopper. Only less funny.
In direct contradiction to 'raising families living standards' this current 'recovery' - which doesn't seem to exist beyond the bubble of non-reality we call London - is seeing them fall. Apparently earning less money and doing less hours means you get to spend less. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who got a maths qualification prior to 2000, although anyone who took one afterwards may have trouble with the concept.
May as well claim to protect the bloody dodo.
Protecting frontline services - in much the same way gangs offer to protect your shop for a small fee after just breaking the window. Labour have waged war on frontline services via fanciful concepts dreamt up by people who've wither never dealt with the frontline, or who did so such a long time back the memory is somewhat hazy.
Take keeping wards clean. You used to have a matron who would terrify the nurses into keeping things ticking over. Now you don't. You have some ridiculously named role - say Medical Hygiene Coherence Manager - with a checkbox. I know, I've built some of the checkboxes online for them.
Same with the police, they've brought in loads of new staff, but they all clock off at 5pm. And PCSO's are usually tucked up in bed when a copper needs a bit of backup when facing an angry pisshead lout armed with a broken bottle or some skaghead waving around a needle.
These aren't pledges, these are requests to fix over a decades worth of fuck-ups by the people who made them and who have shown absolutely no sign of having learned from their mistakes. Or even being aware they were mistakes in the first place.
1 comments: