First rate, Sunny. I will no longer retweet Glover’s articles or buy papers he appears in. That was an awful leader abandons people who have no protection except that offered by unions. It wasn’t even clever.

This is the Union leader voted for by fewer than 20% of his members, who could raise a call to arms which disrupts the working day of the majority of workers?

I am not anti-Union, but I am fed up with this assumption that a Union leader – like the “community leaders” so often quoted – are spokesmen for the common man. We see in Bob Crow an interest only in pushing a personal, political agenda.

Good post. Political Dynamite takes a similar line here – http://politicaldynamite.com/2010/12/why-len-mccluskey-is-right-to-call-for-strike-action/

The Guardian is wrong on this one, bu the blogosphere is fighting back!

Agree with you Sunny.

I too smell Julian Glover’s work.

His continuing and malign presence at the Guardian is one of the reasons I no longer hand over my hard earned dosh to buy it.

Glover’s teenage crushes on Clegg, Cameron & Laws and his embarrassing love of the Coalition would make for comic reading if his basic attitudes weren’t so appalling.

Criticism of his work below the line is dealt with by an extremely illiberal moderation regime.

Who can forget his paean to David Laws simpering about how ‘achingly sad’ it was ‘noble’ Laws wouldn’t be able to carry out his lifetime dream of being public services axeman.

Len McCluskey’s article is up to standard I see.

If the deficit is seen as a problem – it is not high by either historical or contemporary standards…

Highest peace-time deficit ever.

No wonder Ed Miliband called it wrong and unhelpful – even he’s not that cloth-eared.

a deficit created uk govt lending to banks who were deregulated and acted irresponsibly..

6 – usual question: what particular bit of banking deregulation caused the crash?

investing in high risk areas that didnt seem to have any positive out come..i mean if you are charged to look after peoples savings then why are you using that money to bet on 2 legged pony anyway..why bet on anything in fact?

at what point does my money become the banks money?

dont tell me i’m buying a bank ‘product’ so once paid its theirs..eg if they said for £30 pa they would look after my money i’d expect to drop by and draw some out..
thats a product or service…i dont expect them to take a few grand eg peoples wages then use it to gamble with..especially if i’m not told they are doing so…also if they ‘win’ then split the proceeds..

As someone deeply involved in a union-led (though our support is wider) anti-cuts campaign, the Suffolk Coalition for Public Services I found the Guardian Editorial way off the mark.

This is not about unions flexing their muscles, but their bed-rock social goal, to defend their members as workers and as users of public services, and therefore, to support the ‘social’ part of public provision for everyone.

Suffolk faces, along with and using the opportunity of the cuts, a New Strategic Direction – a radical (that is root-and-branch) privatisation scheme.

Unions are concerned not just with cuts (closure of services , such as youth clubs, old people’s homes, crossing patrols) but at the intention to ‘divest’ public services in Suffolk.

This means not just job loses. The Suffolk County Council’s ‘big bang’ aims to hive off as much as possible into the hands of private companies, local oligarchies (believe me, Suffolk ‘localism’ means this, not people-power), Charities, and Sellotape-and-string ideas about replacing libraires and other provision with volunteers.

It will, as the leader of the County Labour Group, Sandy Martin (part of the Suffolk Coalition), remove whole layers of public provision from direct democratic control.

All over the country there are similar groups, organising protests and drawing up alternative strategies for social provision and public services. We have to build links with students – even in Ipswich there have been big student protests. Whether there will be strikes in the sectors affected or nor, that’s a matter for the members of unions to decide. It’s hard to see that more demonstrations and public meetings alone will change things. Although in the longer term changing councils’ political make-up is the principal aim of many in the meantime if union members want to express their opposition to cuts, and privatisation then other forms of action are bound to get backing.

The Guardian Editorial is written by someone without the slightest idea of what kind of broad movements anti-cuts campaigns are.

Whether it’s Glover who wrote this Editorial or not, the Guardian has a long history of producing this kind of material – easy to parody:

http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/student-fees-vote-guardian-editorial/

Shame he chose to write rubbish about the unions on the same day as as he wrote an excellent piece on Stilton.

Maybe he should stick to cheese.

Julian Glover is a complete tool. I have no idea why the Guardian still publishes his rubbish. I screen his articles and never even bother with them. He’s a disgrace to left-wing commentary.

@ “at what point does my money become the banks money?”

It doesn’t. But the basic working principle of a bank is that it borrows your money, in exchange for interest and services (debit card, chequebooks, branches, the account itself etc) to use for investment purposes to make itself a profit. That’s what you agreed to when you opened the account.

I understand and share the anger at the banks, but it’s a mistake to assume that they should just look after your money out of the kindness of their hearts.

“The TUC and Unite of 2010 are not the unions of the 1970s.”

They should be.

The unions were 100% right in the ’70s.

@14 i never expected the banks to look after my money out of any kindness of anything..but it doesnt say in any kind of deal that they are ‘borrowing’ my money or to piss away on arms deal or gamble it on anything…if they did that a lot of people wouldnt want to pay their money into a bank account..
i would expect some honesty though..where a bank tells you before you ‘lend’ them your money what they intend to do with it..how do i know it will still be there in a few months time?

“The government has no strategy for growing jobs. Cuts without a growth plan are not a recovery plan – they are just cuts.”

That’s not an argument against cuts though, just against the way the government are going about it.

For what it’s worth, I do think that raising the personal allowance and cutting business taxes both qualify as a part of a ‘growth plan’. Is it enough of one? No idea, but they are part of a plan.

so lucky me i get a cheque book and in return they gamble it away on some hare brained scheme that has no likelihood of succeeding..then when i write that cheque it bounces because my account has now been emptied…who thought this crap up?

@17 no it isnt its just a reward for all the backhanders the govt has been given..it doesnt benefit anyone cept the ones who it affects ie high earners and big business..you dont still still believe in trickle down economics do you?

@ 16/18 Rob

” i never expected the banks to look after my money out of any kindness of anything..but it doesnt say in any kind of deal that they are ‘borrowing’ my money or to piss away on arms deal or gamble it on anything…if they did that a lot of people wouldnt want to pay their money into a bank account..”

They do. It’s in the Terms and Conditions when you open the account. Given than most current accounts are free of charge, how did you think banks made their money?

“i would expect some honesty though..where a bank tells you before you ‘lend’ them your money what they intend to do with it..how do i know it will still be there in a few months time?”

You don’t: by investing, you yourself are gambling that the bank will not collapse. However, it’s generally held that that’s a bit of a one-sided deal, which is why the government will compensate you up to £50,000 if a bank you use folds.

“so lucky me i get a cheque book and in return they gamble it away on some hare brained scheme that has no likelihood of succeeding..then when i write that cheque it bounces because my account has now been emptied…who thought this crap up?”

Well, were it not for “that crap” you’d keep all your money in cash under your bed. Or, more realistically, you’d have to pay a sizeable amount of money just to have a current account, plus probably a bit extra every time you used your debit card.

*20

I should also point out that there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from setting up a banking system not based on investment, where the company literally keeps your money in a box and instead of paying you interest charges you £x a month for the account, £x for each chequebook you order, and x% on every debit card transaction you make. The fact that the high street is not filled with these institutions is an indicator of how little demand there is for them (disclaimer: for all I know halal banking works a bit like this, but if so that because the customers have specific religious needs, not because it’s seen as a good business model).

@20 judging by what has been happening i think my bed is a safer option..

so how can i guarantee that placing my money with a bank they wont spend it on arms deals propping up some tinpot dictator?

If we wait for the “free media” to support a resurgance in democratic activity in opposing ideologically driven cuts, then we wait in vain. The corporate press will always appeal to the silent majority and uninitiated to hammer “there is no alternative” home. What is cause for optimism is that people are being activised (I hope I have just made a new word up) both inside and outside the trade unions and it is right that Len McCluskey and other trade union leaders do not feel afraid to espouse the anger and resentment whole swathes of the population are feeling at this moment.

Regards

Bob Anderson

@ 22 Rob

Actually, it’s not, because of that £50,000 government guarantee. Of course, if you’ve got more than fifty grand in one bank it might be an idea to move things around a bit.

When banks fail these days, the problem isn’t that the people who use those banks lose their money, it’s that it sends shockwaves through the financial system, resulting in events like the credit crunch. You keeping your money in your mattress can’t change that, and if everyone kept their money in their mattress the result would be a bigger and permanent crash.

Basically, the world we have built is based, in part, on the availability of bank lending. The problem isn’t that banks are allowed to lend your money, it’s that they’re allowed to do so irresponsibly. Legislation is what’s needed.

ok if a govt says..if your bank folds then no worries we’ll sort you out..then what will happen is that depositors will be accused of being something akin to a benefit scroungers -after all the tax payers alliance are always banging on about tax payers money being wasted on this and that..and , after all it was ‘my’ fault for placing my money with that bank in the first place..but surely a lot of banks operate like a cartel anyway…..

@ 23

“so how can i guarantee that placing my money with a bank they wont spend it on arms deals propping up some tinpot dictator?”

A good question. You can look into the past business practices of the bank, which may give at least some indication of their future intentions. Easier solution: bank with the Co-op, who give guarantees that they won’t invest in certain things people consider immoral, including weapons.

Of course, this is a problem in all walks of life. If I buy a t-shirt, how do I know that the person I’m buying it from won’t invest that money in an arms firm?

sorry but this sounds nuts..i go to a shop to buy a sandwich..but in effect i am lending them money and gambling that they wont shut down tomorrow..not being aware if their rent suddenly goes up or a truck slams into their shop….is that why tescos keeps opening up branches every 50 yards in case one of them closes then?

@ 28

Um, what? You don’t lend a shop money, you pay them. Which is why you can’t go to a shop six months later and say “I’d like that money I lent you for that sandwich, please”.

You don’t seriously think buying something and putting money in a bank is the same thing, do you?

@ 26

“ok if a govt says..if your bank folds then no worries we’ll sort you out..then what will happen is that depositors will be accused of being something akin to a benefit scroungers -after all the tax payers alliance are always banging on about tax payers money being wasted on this and that”

Some people will say that, but generally when a bank collapses the public as a whole supports the idea of account holders getting their money back, partly because they can imagine it happening to them. Anyway, who cares what the fucking Taxpayers’ Alliance thinks anyway?

Sunney

I’ll assume this is a typing mistake ?

“I would be willing to bet money it was written by Julian Glover, because it once again misses the point and misrepresents the left and unions.”

If not, it could make your well written article appear as guesswork ? Please delete this comment if I’ve misinterpreted in some way.

@ 31

“Sunney

I’ll assume this is a typing mistake ?”

It certainly is. The man’s name is ‘Sunny’.

(I’ll get me coat.)

Doktorb # 2: ‘This is the Union leader voted for by fewer than 20% of his members, who could raise a call to arms which disrupts the working day of the majority of workers? I am not anti-Union, but I am fed up with this assumption that a Union leader – like the “community leaders” so often quoted – are spokesmen for the common man. We see in Bob Crow an interest only in pushing a personal, political agenda.’

Nice to know that you, judging by your ‘We see…’, represent ‘the common man’.

What percentage of the common men voted for you to represent them?

“While it is easy to dismiss “general strike now” rhetoric from the usual quarters, we have to be preparing for battle”

I think you are misinterpreting what LM was saying here. Ruling out a General Strike as a first option is to be expected. After all, there’s only been one in the nation’s history. They lost, and from there on in it became illegal for the TUC to call one ever again. Were one planned, it would not be announced in a Guardian CiF column.

What he does seem to be saying is that action short of a GS is absolutely possible. Be in no doubt – this is some of the most militant talk we’ve heard in a very long time from the leader of a big union, and will be interpreted as fighting talk by activists.

@ all the reason i would back a gs…is because from my personal point of view all ive been seeing for many years is business running the country..they seem to have too much power and influence especially over govts..they want to own it all and tell everyone what to do..its a wonder why we are expected to vote for politicians i’m surprised it doesnt have tesco or topshop on the ballot paper..

ive not seen anything good come from privatisation at all..ive seen incompetence, asset stripping, and mickey mouse companies made out of thin air just to get govt contracts….yet seen and experiened real hardship…
it just seems to me that some show of action is needed in this country to restore that balance and i’m sick of the drip feed of endless ‘why should i pay for someones health/schooling..whatever//how did we come to this?.

@29 Not really but banks are always telling us they what they offer are ‘products’ just opening an account is a ‘product’ you read it in bank literature a lot…

seems to me everything is a product these days..health, policing, libraries, fire services.maybe even political products…and we are all consumers..is this the friedman world that was imagined?

@22 what was that stuff to do with northern rock..werent there a lot of depositors afraid that there savings etc had gone missing?

@ Rob

“Not really but banks are always telling us they what they offer are ‘products’ just opening an account is a ‘product’ you read it in bank literature a lot…”

“Product” is a very generic word, and these days it is applied to services more readily than it used to be. But that has absoutely nothing to do with the fact that a bank account is not a chicken sandwich, so I don’t see your point.

i wasnt trying to imply that a bank and shop were the same , merely to apply a similar analogy..in that we are able to ‘shop around for a bank arent we? isnt there a market place for banks? are we ‘buying’ anything when we put our dosh into one…

also whats the difference between insurance and banking..they seem to be in the same bed at times..your money goes in..then you have to struggle to get it back out..they both seem very similar..

@ Rob

“what was that stuff to do with northern rock..werent there a lot of depositors afraid that there savings etc had gone missing?”

Yep, because they didn’t know what they were talking about.

Anyone who had a total of less than £36,000 in Northern Rock (that’s the government compensation limit, it’s since been increased to £50,000) stood to lose nothing even if Northern Rock went bankrupt. However, many people didn’t realise this. The worst-case scenario was that they’d have to wait for the government to get around to compensating them. That could cause real problems, obviously, but it’s not the same as losing all their savings, and ironically it would have been a lot less likely to happen if the consumers hadn’t panicked and made a run on the bank.

Those with more than 36K invested in Northern Rock DID stand to lose, but at that point you can afford to talk to a financial advisor, who would probably suggest that you spread your assets around.

The way people act doesn’t always reflect the reality of the situation.

@39 well i do…if banks arent selling us ‘products’ and i DO see that word used over and over again..then what are they doing..after if i dont like what one bank has to offer and can (like a shop) go elsewhere (in theory at least)

@ 40 Rob

“i wasnt trying to imply that a bank and shop were the same , merely to apply a similar analogy..”

It’s not similar. If you buy a sandwich from Tesco, and Tesco then goes broke, you still have a sandwich. If you invest money in an institution, and that goes broke, you lose your money (unless you can claim it back from the government, as I explained above).

“in that we are able to ‘shop around for a bank arent we? isnt there a market place for banks? are we ‘buying’ anything when we put our dosh into one…”

The fact that you can use the word “shop” in a sentence about banks does not constitute an analogy. And no, you’re not buying anything, you are effectively giving a loan to the bank, albeit on very different terms to what we conventionally call a loan.

“also whats the difference between insurance and banking..they seem to be in the same bed at times..your money goes in..then you have to struggle to get it back out..they both seem very similar..”

They are in the same bed as they are both financial services and both involve a “numbers game”. The obvious difference between investment and insurance is that with investment you expect to get some money back (preferably more than you put in!), while with insurance you expect to get nothing back unless whatever you are insured against happens, in which case you get a lot more than you put in. Insurance is basically negative gambling: you’re betting the bank that something will go wrong (your house gets broken into, your car is stolen etc.)

another small question.when did someone decide that even benefit claimants should be paid via bank and not the girocheque to be cashed at the local PO. then see a lot of post offices close down..their now empty property then being sold off and their business shifted into WH Smiths branches..one could be forgiven for thinking this was another public to private shift…

“if banks arent selling us ‘products’ and i DO see that word used over and over again..then what are they doing..after if i dont like what one bank has to offer and can (like a shop) go elsewhere (in theory at least)”

They are borrowing your money. How many times do you want me to say it? The fact that the word “product” is used to refer to several different things is not relevant. Nor is the fact that you can go somewhere else. I really don’t see what you’re trying to prove here.

@ 44

“another small question.when did someone decide that even benefit claimants should be paid via bank and not the girocheque to be cashed at the local PO. then see a lot of post offices close down..their now empty property then being sold off and their business shifted into WH Smiths branches..one could be forgiven for thinking this was another public to private shift…”

Interesting point. The argument for paying benefits straight to your bank account was, I assume, that it is more convenient, but I see your point about how it probably helped to undermine post offices. It’s difficult to know whether that was deliberate.

i’m envisioning a day when i call the police on a premium rate number and someone answers me with ‘give me you account number’…

@44 thank you..thats always puzzled me , my understanding was that WH Smiths were ailing and this was another attempt to provide them with ready made customers..isnt that how privatisation works?

ok so when you buy stamps and pay for postage is the money going to PO counters or WH Smiths? did smiths buy the PO franchise?

@ 47

“i’m envisioning a day when i call the police on a premium rate number and someone answers me with ‘give me you account number’…”

For a reasonably enjoyable novel about that idea, try Jennifer Government. It’s about a future society where the government and police are totally subsidised and people use the name of their employer as their surname (so the lead character is called Jennifer Government because she works for the government; in her last job she was called Jennifer Nike).

If taken as a warning about what the future might hold, it’s very over the top, but it makes a nice attack on the idea of market forces being the solution to all life’s problems.

@ 48

I’m not 100% sure, but I think when you buy stamps from a private vendor like WHSmiths the money goes to the Post Office. It’s possible that the shop doesn’t even take a cut, because it’s worth selling the stamps at zero profit to get people into the shop.

This is fairly normal behaviour, by the way. Shops and petrol stations make almost no profit on petrol and cigarettes, and if they sold those items exclusively they wouldn’t be able to pay their overheads. Petrol stations only make a profit because they have convenience stores attached. Supermarkets only sell fags because if they didn’t smokers would go to another supermarket.

What did get me was not so long ago i saw the advertising on post offices using the term ‘the peoples post office’ like it was some socialist state type thing or at least a stereotypical view, when it fact in reality it looked more like just another dept of a WH Smiths.branch…odd.

doktor b: This is the Union leader voted for by fewer than 20% of his members

By that metric – how much of the percentage of the population actually voted for Cameron? Let’s ignore him as PM too

Highest peace-time deficit ever.

True, though he meant national debt as a percentage of GDP, not the deficit as percentage of GDP.

Mark M: That’s not an argument against cuts though, just against the way the government are going about it.

If you’re cutting for its own sake, then you’re an idiot, because it just depresses the economy and makes it harder to get out of debt.

That the Tories don’t have a growth plan is the clearest indication this is an ideological crusade and they have no idea what’s next.

Highest peace-time deficit ever.

True, though he meant national debt as a percentage of GDP, not the deficit as percentage of GDP.

Well then duh. They’re very different and not very complicated concepts. It also undermines the entire argument:

“We don’t need to cut the debt – it’s not that high.”
“We’re not cutting the debt, we’re just trying to reduce the amount by which it’s growing, because presently it’s growing at its fastest ever rate, only lower than Greece and Ireland.”

That the Tories don’t have a growth plan is the clearest indication this is an ideological crusade and they have no idea what’s next.

Yeah, because five year plans are always successful, and growth can’t happen unless it’s been meticulously planned by Government.

Glover talks as if the Union movement is in terminal decline. He really should read his own paper in more detail. Today’s edition contains a piece on the rapidly rising number of people in the voluntary sector joining unions. So much so, Unite has held its first ever conference devoted entirely to this sector.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/voluntary-sector-network/2010/dec/06/trade-unions-job-worries

I’ve noted poor old Chaise Guevara trying to explain that when you or I make a deposit at the bank, we are providing a loan to the bank in return for other benefits (interest, transaction costs, account maintenance).

It is worth noting that banks are broken down into divisions: the first type handle current accounts, deposit accounts, ISAs, mortgages, business accounts (ie divisions that deal with individuals, relatively small companies and some largish companies) and the second borrow from investment institutions in order to lend to others.

The two types of division operate very differently. The first type will typically be loaning your money to existing bank customers (people who need a mortgage, an overdraft or a business loan) who are judged as lowish risk. Managers in this type do not receive huge bonuses because they are dealing with established risk in a nice little earner where the manager cannot make much difference. Some of your ISA or deposit money may be loaned to somebody in another riskier division of the bank, but not all of it.

The second type deals with riskier investments, or if you prefer, gambles. Most banks (Northern Rock and the ones who took a government loan to survive) made bets/investments that were too risky. They were not investing your money; it was money borrowed from somebody else. Whilst Northern Rock et al had made many bets that will give a return in the long term, there were enough bad gambles to discourage the people who would loan them £10 million to keep the business afloat.

Note particularly that some banks (eg Barclays) indulged in high risk investment and survived without a government loan.

And the rescue loans are loans, not gifts, to banks. The money that you have loaned to the high risk investment divisions will be paid back (I presume with interest?). The long term bets that work out will repay the money that you have loaned. Eventually.

I don’t argue against investment bank reform, but I’m not going to follow the left wing rant about evil banks. Stupid banks, perhaps.

Yes, the editorial is Glover’s. His style shines through, and is really quite distinctive, probaly because it contrasts with that of all the other leader writers.

Sandy @ 4 is quite right, anything other than gushing praise of Glover in the “comment is free” (sic) section is dealt with by severe moderation – I was banned for a while for this. Some have suggested that he read his own paper more- I’ve always put him down as a Times man myself – the gushing praise of Cameron seems to come with the terroritory there.

In summary, I dont buy the Guardian any more, and wont part with a penny of my money until they part company with Glover. They neednt worry, I’m sure he can easily find a job elsewhere in the right wing nutjob press.

Chaise has far more patience than me. But I can explain this one:

“when did someone decide that even benefit claimants should be paid via bank and not the girocheque to be cashed at the local PO”

I’m going to hold my hands up here and confess that it was me. Back in 2003 when I claimed JSA for a few months I was invited to a focus group run by the DWP. They wanted to explore whether all claimants should be paid via bank, as the efficiency savings alone would make it worthwhile.

I told them not only was it better for them, but it was also better for everyone concerned as it was more convenient and easier for the claimant as well. I said I couldn’t understand why people didn’t already do it this way, and that making it compulsory would also help with the government’s financial inclusion agenda.

So yeah, sorry if you’ve been brought into the 20th century, albeit better late than never. I also suggested that much of what they did could be done online (all the forms etc), but I guess that was going too far for them considering some of their own staff can barely use a PC. Unfortunately discussion of the system as a whole was off topic, and frankly I enjoyed the tea and biscuits too much to rock the boat..

@58 Hmmm i think the point i was trying to get to was that by shifting from post office girocheque to bank did it not infer that it provided banks with ready made customers as result..also the same with assisting wh smiths with same..isn’t that how privatisation works? cut off the public service and replace it with private replacement….instant customers…and theres no need for sarcasm re ’20th century’ pls..

@ 59 Rob

The thing is that pretty much everybody has a bank account now. This has led to most firms only paying wages by bank transfer. Of course, the result of THAT is that it’s difficult to avoid having a bank account now if for any reason you’d prefer not to: not only would you have to be paid in cash, but you would also find it impossible to pay your bills, as these almost always have to be paid by standing order, direct debit or cheque. Benefit payments are a drop in the ocean among all those other transactions.

There is no reason to believe that this is some sort of conspiracy, though, it’s just progress. If you don’t feel safe keeping money in the bank (and as I said before the government compensation scheme does have you covered there), there’s no reason you couldn’t take out the money on the day you were paid, then pay back in the exact amount needed to cover bills on the due date. Bit of a pain in the neck, of course, but no more so than if you had to visit an office of each company to pay them cash.

Sarcasm aside, Planeshift is right: requiring people to go to the Post Office would be a large step backwards in terms of convenience and efficiency and would be rightly denounced across the nation if implemented now. I’m sure you’re correct in that the changes have hurt the Post Office, but I think that’s an unfortunate side effect of an otherwise good policy.

all the same..put together the shift to bank and wh smiths does look a bit like privatisation…

on another track we were discussing re service stations…you said they made little profit on the sale of petrol ok? well i got someone to look into some details..
and came up with figures..
they go 24% of 100p ppl goes on operating costs
5% of 10p ppl goes to retailer/wholsaler profit
67% og 100p ppl goes to govt…

i may be thick but even at 5% i think shell/ bp isnt broke..

but 67% goes to govt? and we are meant to be broke?

@ 61 Rob

“i may be thick but even at 5% i think shell/ bp isnt broke..”

Yeah, but factor in overheads such as wages, rent, insurance, security, equipment, petrol delivery etc. etc. It’s not that they make NO money from petrol, it’s that they’d probably run at a loss if they ONLY sold petrol.

“but 67% goes to govt? and we are meant to be broke?”

That’s peanuts next to cigarettes. I think about four fifths of the price of a pack of fags is tax. And I find that one more sinister: keeping petrol prices high at least encourages people to take the bus and thus reduce their carbon footprint, but taxing cigarettes so highly is a case of using cost factors to meddle in people’s private lives while simultaneously taking advantage of an addicted demographic.

Just as I thought – a Tory at the Guardian posing as a liberal. It is outrageous and we will not put up with it. From now on Julian Glover is ‘over’. He needs to go – can’t we demand he read the New Statesman every day for at least a year? I’ve noticed there’s another of his type (or it may be that Glover chap in his Sunday best name) at The Observer who demands we stop giving our loose change to beggars who may spend it on drugs!! Dig them out and throw them far – they are Murdoch fans – not for the likes of us!!

@ 63

” I’ve noticed there’s another of his type (or it may be that Glover chap in his Sunday best name) at The Observer who demands we stop giving our loose change to beggars who may spend it on drugs!! ”

Not a stance I agree with, but I don’t think that it’s sensationally right-wing in itself.

As regards demanding that Glover’s head should roll: one of the problems with the Guardian is that historically it’s tended to be averse to printing views that don’t match those of the editor. I’m not sure that silencing contrasting opinions is the way forward.

@ 64 Chaise Guevara: “As regards demanding that Glover’s head should roll: one of the problems with the Guardian is that historically it’s tended to be averse to printing views that don’t match those of the editor.”

My gut response was to question whether the Guardian is afraid to upset readers, rather than the editor. Then I thought of Seumas Milne; most Guardian readers have moved on sufficiently to spot a Tankie, but Milne is considered by somebody as a serious commentator. Milne has a responsible job.

In the time that I have read LibCon, I can’t recall any debate where Milne has been quoted as a reliable source. I am not trying to create a campaign to sack Milne from the Guardian, because I want to know what Tankies think.

Guardian Newspapers employ journalists to write polemics that you may or may not like. I don’t care that you hate Julian Glover, Simon Jenkins or Nick Cohen. I prefer to read their words in the Guardian alongside George Monbiot and Jackie Ashley. And that Tankie.

i thought people who wrote for guardian were woowoos….but i guess its better than the snarfos at the times…

I too smell Julian Glover’s work.

How does it smell different to that of, say, Martin Kettle?

Anyone expecting real action to fight cuts from most of todays unions needs help . Unions ..especially the likes of Unison …will sit in their hands ..along with the Labour Party ..as public sector workers are thrown on the scrap heap…..Demo in March ? I’ll probably be out of a fuckin job by then !