No doubt I’ll be accused by some of giving prominence to these Truthers. On the other hand unless such accounts are challenged and shone a light on, they can generate their own unchallenged cult status.

I shouldn’t have to do this but I’ll say anyway that I think the claims below are ridiculous and the work of fantasists.

A website and online radio station calling itself Truth Frequency Radio claims that the Woolwich attack was a “hoax”.

As far as I can tell, it is a US-based project run by two individuals Chris Geo and Sheree Geo (pictured).

They say the Woolwich attack “has all of the same earmarks as the Sandy Hook, The Boston Marathon Bombing and so many recent events”. In other words it believes those incidents were hoaxes too.

We’ll continue to look into this story but on the surface it seems like just another propaganda piece, nothing to really concern ourselves with and most likely a distraction while they slip more totalitarian legislation through.

And their case for calling it a “hoax”? Grainy pictures that don’t show enough blood. Err, that’s it.

.

Errr… how in the world does this demonstrate it was a “hoax”? What about the actual dead bodies?

Nevertheless, there are several images like this

.

Chris and Sheree Geo claim they founded Truth Frequency Radio “with the purpose of compiling an archive of information which can be used for generations to come”. Perhaps for generations to laugh at them.

Their blog post claiming Woolwich was a hoax is here. Like I said, nuts.

UPDATE 1
There’s also very idiotic this blog post claiming it was a false-flag operation (via @stophmcc)

UPDATE 2 There’s a video too

The claim is being spread by the official EDL account and EDL activists, has kicked off on Twitter and Facebook.

But it is untrue.

Update: I now have a screenshot of most of these Tweets.

“Muslims celebrating soldiers death in Oldham right now”

— EnglishDefenceLeague (@Official_EDL) May 23, 2013

.

Police trying 2 disperse 100s of Muslims on Victoria st Oldham from celebrating the murder of… fb.me/2DwIJb8Sw

— EnglishDefenceLeague (@Official_EDL) May 23, 2013

.

Police trying 2 disperse 100s of Muslims on Victoria st Oldham from celebrating the murder of British soldier. Report that @granadareports

— KING ERIC (@scordo1965) May 23, 2013

.

muslims celebrating the death in oldham right now!? makes me sick. scum of the earth them bastards! they really are.

— Ryan Anthony Moseley (@RyanMoseleynufc) May 23, 2013

.

Muslims celebrating soldiers death in Oldham- Grandma: They all need machine gunning! … There generation wouldn’t take this shit! #Respect

— Tom Alex Hanmer (@THanmerMCFC) May 23, 2013

.

[Tweets that don't show up have been deleted]
.

But Greater Manchester Police confirmed no such celebration.

In fact they denied any such ‘celebrations’ were taking place.

Rumours of unrest in Chadderton, Oldham, are untrue. Police patrols have been to the area and there are no protests.

— G M Police (@gmpolice) May 23, 2013

.

@225neverforgive @tonyleemartin There is no unrest in Oldham. This rumour is false.

— G M Police (@gmpolice) May 23, 2013

.

So now the English Defence League have been caught actively spreading lies in order to cause more tension and violence.

And confirmation from others

@sunny_hundal I’m from Oldham and I’m part of that community. Absolutely nothing happened.

— dave sykes (@sykesy_dave) May 23, 2013

.

@sunny_hundal That would seem to be a clear breach of the Communications Act (2003) Sec 127 para 2 legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/… re: false info.

— Paul Cotterill (@Bickerrecord) May 23, 2013

@sunny_hundal Or indeed it could be a breach of Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/… re: wasting police time

— Paul Cotterill (@Bickerrecord) May 23, 2013

There’s Muslims in the Army/Navy/RAF that do a lot more for this country than you. You gonna try get rid of them as well? @edltrobinson

— JOHN H (@lfc2652) May 22, 2013

.

This tweet in response was spot on too.

@lfc2652 @edltrobinson Don’t get involved talking to these idiots fella. They claim to represent us and fuel an almost Nazi-like opinion.

— SSearle (@Remenutter) May 22, 2013

It was treated as being racially aggravated and likely connected to the attack in Woolwich earlier yesterday.

Around the same time, a spokesperson for Essex Police confirmed: “Police have arrested a 43-year-old man from Braintree following reports of a man in possession of a knife outside the prayer centre in Silks Way, Braintree.

Secretary of mosque in Essex tells me lone white man with two knives tried to attack congregation, saying “Where is your Allah now.” #c4news

— Darshna Soni (@darshnasoni) May 22, 2013

Plus

Muslim helpline @tellmamauk receives calls on “28 reports, 5 threats, 3 mosques attacked. tally so far on this night of shame.”

— huma qureshi (@Huma_Qureshi) May 22, 2013

.

And there were comments on Twitter like

Perhaps we should all wait outside a mosque tooled up and hack up the first guy who comes out on a turban. #wankers

— Andy Lloyd (@AndyLloyd8) May 22, 2013

.

This is what propaganda incites,vandalism of a Mosque & car in Bradford. The last I saw similar to this was in Hebron twitter.com/ShareefaEnergy…

— Shareefa (@ShareefaEnergy) May 23, 2013

.

So why isn’t any of this classed as ‘terrorism’?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(via @suttonnick)

Meet Henry Bellingham MP. He is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

He believes in LGBT rights and for the need to treat homosexuals equally.

At least, that’s what he told the House of Commons two years ago:

I want to say a few words about our policy more generally in Uganda. We are committed to combating violence and discrimination against LGBT people as an integral part of our international human rights work. We realise that sexual orientation is a sensitive issue in many communities, but we firmly believe that any illegality of consenting same-sex relations is incompatible with international human rights law, including the international covenant on civil and political rights.

Laws should guarantee the same rights to everyone regardless of sexuality, and if LGBT people choose to exercise those rights, they should be free do to so.

The Foreign Office has a clear programme for promoting the human rights of LGBT people that focuses on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the fight against discrimination. It includes taking action on individual cases where discrimination has occurred, lobbying for changes in discriminatory practices and laws, and helping individuals on a case-by-case basis. Although the debate focuses on Uganda, similar prejudices against LGBT people unfortunately exist in many parts of Africa, and in many other places around the world.

[Emphasis mine]. Good words, and they were welcomed by Labour MPs at the time according to the Hansard report (ht @ed_son).

And yet, in the House of Commons yesterday, Henry Bellingham voted to deny gays and lesbians in the UK the same rights (to marriage) as heterosexual couples.

Why would other countries take moralising seriously from this government?

The government has decided to offer around 600 Afghan interpreters a chance to settle in Britain, it is being reported today.

The move will be a welcome u-turn for the government, and will still be subject to caveats and conditions that campaigners will now focus on.

According to press reports today, all interpreters who have been in the job for more than 12 months and put themselves in physical danger would be offered a resettlement package.

To be more specific, to be eligible they will need to have worked between December 2012 and December 2014, when British troops are due to leave.

But British forces have been there a lot longer, and there are worries this will exclude interpreters who had earlier worked for British forces and are still in danger.

Interpreters outside this criteria would be given a five-year training and education package with Afghan security forces.

The Times newspaper and the campaign group Avaaz.org had been campaigning hard on the issue, and both will welcome today’s announcement.

Labour’s Yvette Cooper issued a statement today saying:

This is a welcome about turn by the Prime Minister. We called for a settlement scheme for Afghan interpreters last December and called for it again in the Queen’s Speech. Ministers have repeatedly told us the number of interpreters was too many and they should simply be given money to stay and face threats from the Taliban.

We will scrutinise the scheme carefully, as the details don’t appear to be worked through. But we welcome this u-turn, albeit after Ministers had said the opposite over many weeks and months.

This blog had also started a campaign on the issue, and we were working with several newspapers to highlight the issue.

One Afghan interpreter gave this interview to BBC R4′s World at One today, saying the government’s offer did not going far enough

Ever since I first worked as a care assistant in the mid-1980s, care homes have been in some kind of crisis or turmoil. The issues are the same now as they were 30 years ago. The pressures, though, are growing more and more acute as our society ages.

I am now responsible for the management of a range of services including care homes and housing-based support and I want to find out what we can do about it. That is why, supported by JRF, I am embarking on an inquiry into risk and relationships in care homes.

What is it that needs to change? The half a million people currently living in care homes is likely to rise significantly in the near future. These people are our parents, our siblings, our friends and one day ourselves! Chronic concerns about quality of care, funding, pay, regulation continue to persist, in spite of numerous commissions, inquiries, regulators and Government interventions.

I want to get under the skin of care homes in the UK and discover what people really think, what has to change, what is good and why.

Over the next 12 months, I’ll be visiting care homes and talking to people with real experience; residents, relatives, friends, care staff, managers, cleaners, volunteers.

I’ll also be posing a series of questions to expose the real issues, get an honest debate going, and expose the contradictions and misconceptions that exist in the relationship between care homes, residents, staff and the general public.

So please let me know what you think, by:

• commenting on blogs
• tweeting me @JohnnyCosmos
• liking and commenting on my Facebook page

What do we already know?

• The quality and equality of good relationships is key – respect for individuals’ personalities, sense of humour; trust me as I trust you?
• People working in care homes often feel overwhelmed, anxious, self-doubting, guilty and under attack.
• The public perceives care homes as unwanted, expensive, unkind, indifferent and miserable places.

Care homes just don’t seem to work for us. Or do they?

A recent MORI survey found a surprisingly high level of satisfaction amongst care home residents. Are care homes that awful? Are our expectations too high or too low? What is the reality?

What makes a good care home and what gets in the way? Is there something about our attitude to risk? Do the ‘rules and regulations’, designed to protect and ensure quality, do so or do they actually get in the way? Are they the right ‘rules and regulations’?

What do I want to do?

I want to get out there and visit people and places known for excellent relationships – to understand how this has been achieved. I also want to visit and speak to people in places that are not succeeding. I want to hear why. What is in the way?

I want to encourage people with experience and knowledge to talk about what they think is really the problem. I am sure there is plenty of ‘unspoken’ truth just waiting to be heard. I also want to speak to people with no experience of care homes. What do they think, what is their perception?

This is personal, because if I am fortunate enough to live to a good age I want to be cared for in a nice place by valued and compassionate people – people who treat me kindly and have the time to care.

So please join me on this journey and let’s see if we can make a better future.

—
John Kennedy is Director of Care Services at JRHT

As far as public opinion is concerned, YouGov President Peter Kellner laid out the actual position with admirable clarity yesterday:

The passions of grass-roots Tories who are bitterly opposed to same-sex marriage are not shared by the wider electorate. Most voters back a change in the law – and very few opponents are willing to switch their votes because of this issue.
…
So, among the public as a whole, 4% are pro-same-sex marriage AND say this is a vote-deciding issue, while 3% are in the opposite camp. Among those who voted Conservative in 2010, just 6% say this is a vote-deciding issue, and they divide 3-1 against same-sex marriage. So even there, the net effect is tiny.

So, not only do a majority of the public support marriage equality but its also anything but the political hot potato that its (mostly) Tory opponents are trying to make out.

However, one issue not many pick up on is the parallel problem of ‘organisational capture’, i.e. what us lefties used to refer to as ‘entryism‘.

In simple terms, it is not simply a matter of the decline in the mass membership of political parties, and other organisations, leaving them increasingly at the mercy of their residual ‘swivel-eyed’ activist rump. It also leaves them in a position where, starting at the grassroots level, they become increasingly susceptible to capture by organised minority interest groups intent on using the party/organisation as a vehicle to push their own narrow agenda.

Although this is problem that is, historically, most closely associated with the political left, and in the UK particular with the takeover of the Labour Party Young Socialists and Liverpool City Council by Militant, it is an issue that is increasingly coming to bedevil conservative politics, particularly in the United States. For example, one of the more alarming and poignant stories to emerge from the 2010 US election was that of Bob Inglis, a former Republican member of the US House of Representatives who was deselected in 2010 after losing a primary to Tea Party-backed candidate.

You might think this can safely be filed away under ‘only in America’, but don’t be so sure.

Take a good hard look at the following chart which I’ve put together in an attempt to map the many connections that already exist between our own right-wing Christian lobby and both their US counterparts and, more importantly, with a wide range of British conservative political organisations and politicians.

The map, which is far from complete, shows the extent to which our own religious lobby has already forged connections and assumed positions of influence throughout the right-wing/conservative movement in Britain.

It also shows the extent to which political opposition to measures such as equal marriage and legal access to safe abortion services originates with and is tied into a very narrow range of closely connected religious groups.

(download as a print quality PDF, 1mb)

If you think that the religious right in Britain is no more than a bunch of fringe evangelical groups with few connections and very little political influence, this chart may well persuade you to think again.

—
A longer version of this post is here.

The Bank now expects growth in 2013 to come in around the 1.2% mark, an upward revision from the 1.0% it expected in February and twice as high as the OBR’s own estimate of 0.6%.

Presented with this information, one response is to hail ‘Good news Britain’ and point out that the Bank now expects a recovery twice as fast as the OBR.

Another, and I would argue more correct response, is to note that whilst growth of 1.2% is obviously preferable to growth of 0.6% it is nothing to shout about.

Indeed the OBR expected growth of 1.2% in 2013 as recently as last December. The initial OBR forecast for 2013, on which the Government’s fiscal plans were based, was for growth of 2.9%. No one now thinks 2.9% growth in 2013 is remotely plausible.

The economy might be healing in as much as it is showing some tentative signs of growth but whether compared to the original forecasts, to international experience or to the UK’s own history this is an appallingly weak recovery.

As I noted a few weeks ago, on the IMF’s forecasts (as good as any) the UK is set to experience a lost decade of GDP per capita growth. This is not what a ‘healing economy’ looks like.

Real wages have fallen by a huge 8.5% over the past three years.

Even leaving aside inflation, nominal earnings have been falling since last summer. And, as James Plunkett notes on twitter, the level of people in employment has dropped since the end of 2012.

It is an odd recovery indeed that is accompanied by falling employment and falling incomes and it is even odder that anyone can look at the UK data and see much to celebrate.

So, if the labour market is stagnant and real incomes are squeezed, where is this modest recovery coming from?

One answer can be found in the housing market where prices are once again rising.

The early indications are that the Chancellor’s interventions in the housing market are starting to bear fruit, prices are heading north and activity is picking up.

The real worry now is that the Government’s housing interventions (that push up prices not building) will mean we get an increase in growth funded by yet more household debt.

Some will no doubt argue that a few years of faster growth are a better out turn than stagnation. Whilst this is true we shouldn’t kid ourselves that an asset price, consumer debt led recovery is a good, or sustainable, outcome.

—
A longer version of this post is here.

That sentiment underlines what is likely to be a day of complicated manoeuvring in Westminster.

Here’s why it is complicated. Tory MP Tim Loughton has tabled an amendment calling on civil partnerships to be extended to opposite-sex couples too. Scores of rebel Tory MPs are expected to support it.

The government opposes this and calls it a ‘wrecking amendment’ because, they claim, it would delay legalisation of same-sex marriage and incur extra costs (of up to £4bn they say).

So what is Labour doing?

Remember this is a free vote. I asked senior sources how much pressure was being put on Labour MPs, but they declined to offer more detail. I have clarification on how Yvette Cooper and Ed Miliband are voting. The rest of the party are likely to follow but it’s not guaranteed.

First, Labour are tabling their own amendment to the same-sex marriage bill. The amendment will not delay the bill but demand an immediate consultation into extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex partners, and take a closer look at the cost projections.

Labour say this offers the government a way out, by committing to move on extending civil partnerships while having no excuse to delay the bill. Yvette Cooper told BBC’s World at One that said she did not want the government to “use this amendment as an excuse to delay or wreck the bill.”

Second, they will not vote against Tim Loughton’s amendment as a matter of principle. The leadership say they will most likely abstain instead. But Miliband/Cooper are leaving on the table a threat to support the Loughton amendment if the government does not support Labour’s own offer.

The aim, Labour sources say, is to pressure the government to keep the same-sex marriage bill moving while looking closely at extending civil partnerships.

Yvette Cooper on R4′s WATO

UPDATE

Tories to support Labour Equal Marriage Bill amendment. Top Labour source: “Pleased they’re still capable of at least some rational thought”

— Sunny Hundal (@sunny_hundal) May 20, 2013

The Telegraph also reports that Local Conservative party campaigners, including the chairman of one constituency association, will this week pledge their support for Nigel Farage after one of David Cameron’s allies described grassroots Tories as “mad, swivel-eyed loons”.

As I’ve written before, Farage would be better off trying to usurp the Conservatives as the main party of the right than going into an alliance with them.

This ad escalates that coming war. IT’ll be interesting to see how the Tory leadership respond if more activists and members defect to UKIP.

It’s fair to say George Osborne has never been the Financial Transaction Tax’s biggest fan. As 11 European countries agreed a 0.01%-0.1% tax on shares, bonds and derivatives that will raise an estimated £30bn each year, he made clear that Britain was folding its arms, stamping its foot and refusing to join in.

It’s one thing to dismiss billions in additional revenue, side with your friends in the City and plump instead for the harshest programme of austerity since WWII.

But, clearly feeling his priorities were still not perverse enough, the Chancellor then launched a legal challenge against the European’s proposal, arguing it would be bad for his friends in the City.

George Osborne protested that European’s choosing to tax their financial institutions and their financial products may impact on other countries. Except that is precisely how our own stamp duty on shares works. Of the £3bn this FTT raises the UK Exchequer each year, around 40% of revenue comes from overseas.

In the face of such hypocrisy the Robin Hood Tax campaign launched a petition calling on Osborne to drop the legal challenge.

Over 15,000 people emailed the Treasury, who blocked the emails. We’ll be taking the petition by hand to the Treasury to ensure they get the message.

There have been almost daily attacks against the Financial Transaction Tax in the right of centre press as well, backed up by a slew of ‘reports’ commissioned by the financial sector. We’re taking this as a good sign.

One of the only concrete proposals to emerge post-crisis to ensure ordinary people do not pay for the economic mess is on the verge of becoming reality.

The shame is that Osborne’s opposition means the UK public will miss out on the benefits. Wild-eyed proclamations of the financial sector aside, this proposal is moderate. FTTs already exist not only in the UK, but around the world. Collectively they raise around £25bn a year. They have been implemented by governments of all political hues and in key financial centres such as Hong Kong, South Africa and Brazil.

As the government goes into overdrive to weaken the proposal, so it’s now more than ever they need reminding – the interests of the financial sector do not equate to the interests of society as a whole.

—
Simon works for the Robin Hood Tax Campaign

Firstly, I’d like to thank Sunny, for saying that the campaign for Labour to support an EU referendum is “cool”.

He’s right; out of all the groups calling for the Labour Party to support a policy launched this week, Labour for a Referendum is the most in vogue.

However, on the main crux of his article, that our campaign is “Dead on Arrival”, we would have to, somewhat controversially, disagree.

Sunny outlines three main points for his argument. I will try and rebut each of these points as thoroughly, fairly and, crucially, quickly as possible.

1) Supporting a referendum would make Eurosceptic Tory backbenchers more demanding.

I don’t see this as being Ed Miliband’s problem. If Labour supported a referendum one suspects that Tory MPs would attempt to push their own leader into a more hardline position rather than ours.

Sure, Tory backbenchers might become more demanding, but that would only lead them to more internal bickering, rather than dividing our party?

2) You shouldn’t get involved when your opponents are infighting.

The idea that we should adopt a grab-the-popcorn approach to opposition and let the victory come to us seems flawed. While it makes perfect sense not to rush into policy commitments so far before the election, when we see the Tories in disarray we should capitalise on it as best we can.

Milk that subject for all it’s worth. Grab it and run. Put a spanner in the works. Use whatever metaphor you want, but sitting back and relaxing is easy, but it is no path to a Labour majority.

3) Labour’s line is settled, we can’t go back on it now.

We’re not expecting to change Labour’s policy by the end of the week. That’s not the plan. What we want is for a commitment to an EU referendum to be in our 2015 manifesto. We think it’s the right thing to do, we think it’s popular and we think it will help get Ed Miliband in 10 Downing Street.

But we’re happy to play the long game. 2017 is indeed “far, far away”, although it is likely/definitely going to be half as far away when we go into the next election. Everything Miliband has said about it so far has been couched in language that suggests that this is a policy liable to change if circumstances do.

Our job, as Labour for a Referendum, is to make sure that the pressure is kept on, and that Miliband knows just how helpful a pledge could be.

Finally, I can only apologise that Labour for a Referendum did not exist a year ago. Circumstances changed.

—
Dominic Moffitt is Campaign Director for Labour for a Referendum

Most Britons, including a majority of those who voted Conservative in 2010, think he is acting out of tactical calculation rather than because he feels deeply about the issue.

That’s the copnclusion offered by Peter Kellner today.

And this chart shows it.

Peter Kellner adds:

Voters, and especially floating voters, tend to decide which party to support on character more than policy. Parties and their leaders attract more support if they are regarded as principled and competent. If they are thought to be driven by tactics rather than belief, they risk being seen as weak and losing respect and votes.

That is the risk that Cameron now faces over Europe. He could end up losing more votes by appearing unprincipled than he gains from adopting a stance on the EU that appears to be closer to the public mood. In contrast, the popularity of UKIP and Farage is being driven not just by his stance on the EU, but also by respect for being thought to restore principles to politics

Ouch!

This entire EU Referendum episode has been a disaster for Cameron.

Panayiotis Iliopoulos condemned fellow MPs as ‘wretched sell-outs’ and ‘goats’, swearing as other Golden Dawn MPs also walked out.

At the :36 mark in this video you can hear a member of the party shout “Heil Hitler.”

via ekathimerini.com

People will be shocked by the evidence that Google is going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

It comes on top of other firms apparently engaging in similar practices.

It is evidence of a culture of corporate irresponsibility among certain firms which is totally unacceptable.

And of course we have now seen allegations about petrol fixing as well.

It comes at a time when ordinary families are seeing services cut, their taxes rising and so many businesses are struggling to make ends meet and are actually doing the right thing and paying their fair share of taxes.

As so often under this Government, I think it is evidence of one rule for those at the top and another rule for everyone else.

David Cameron says we have to just wait for international action. He is wrong.

Unfortunately, it is Dead on Arrival. Finished. The chances succeeding now are very near zero.

And there are very simple reasons for this.

1) Mad Euro-sceptic Tories have shown that once you feed the beast it only grows and gets more demanding. So Ed Miliband will not want to feed it at all.

2) When your opponents are in chaos and fighting against each other, why wade in too? It is much better for Ed Miliband to let the Tories carry on making a fool out of themselves. It’s not like the EU Referendum is going to come at an earlier date just because Tory backbenchers want it so.

3) The Labour leadership have settled on a position now: committing to a referendum now would only lead to more uncertainty over the UK’s relationship with Europe, given 2017 is so far away. It makes no sense to junk that position at now.

I was told by a senior shadow cabinet member, over a year ago, that at one point all three parties were negotiating a joint position on offering an EU Referendum. At that point I was optimistic that it would be in Labour’s next manifesto or materialise as a commitment even earlier.

But for some reason the negotiations broke down and the three parties could not agree on jointly offering an EU Referendum. And so everyone went their separate ways.

A more coordinated campaign to get Labour to agree to a referendum should have been launched over a year ago. At this stage, mostly thanks to the antics of the Tory right, there is no chance the Labour leadership will entertain the idea now.

But thy is Dorries even talking about the possibility of running on a joint Tory/UKIP ticket?

Well, the answer almost certainly lies in this recent YouGov poll:

New YouGov research conducted just before her party membership was reinstated reveals that 43% of Tories would have supported the party’s decision to reinstate her, while 45% think she should not be allowed to rejoin the party.

That’s right, more Tory voters would rather have seen Dorries left out in the cold than were happy to see her readmitted to the party and the figures amongst UKIP voters are not that much better:

The poll also suggests many UKIP voters may be relieved the Conservative Party took Dorries back. 35% of UKIP supporters think their party would be less credible if Nadine Dorries were to join it, compared to only 7% who think it would be more credible.

Oh dear…

Even allowing for UKIP recent performance in the local elections and expectations that it will perform extremely well in next year’s European elections, one would not normally expect to see a self-styled Eurosceptic MP in a historically very safe Tory seat sweating over the possibility of UKIP running a candidate against them at the next general election.

If nothing else, the majority of incumbent Tory Eurosceptics have a personal vote and a track record to call upon that means that’s unlikely that they local electorate will seek to punish them for what they perceive to be Cameron’s follies but Dorries is not in anything like that position thanks to her own past conduct – and I’m not just talking here about her skipping out her constituents for more than three weeks to appear on “I’m a Celebrity…”.

There’s also the little matter of her using her personal ‘blog’ to mislead her own constituents as to the actual location of her main home, while claiming for her constituency home on expenses, her habitual use of her own parliamentary office as a job creation scheme for her own daughter and, of course, the ongoing investigation by IPSA into expenses claimed since the last general election for the rental of flat in Pimlico that, as I revealed last week, she used overnight for a total of just 25 nights in the whole of 2012 while, at the same time, claiming just over £4,000 to cover the costs of make a daily commute to Westminster from her constituency home, and back, eighty-six times.

The full figures are, I think, well worth repeating:

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out, based on YouGov’s polling and her own track record, why Dorries is talking up the idea of trying run on an joint Tory/UKIP ticket.

It’s not that she fears that a UKIP candidate in her constituency will be able to exploit Tory divisions over Europe but rather that by running on anti-politics ticket, UKIP may very well be in a position to exploit her own personal unpopularity amongst her Tory voters and her dubious track record on expenses to, at the very least, take a sizeable chunk out of her majority, if not pose a serious threat of unseating her.

This is not about confusion amongst members of her own constituency association, it’s purely about trying to keep UKIP out of her constituency in the interests of self-preservation and not losing her main taxpayer-funded meal ticket.

She is, as Margaret Thatcher might have put it, ‘Frit’.

Peter Taylor-Gooby points out that, as inequality has risen, attitudes towards the poor and benefit recipients have hardened. He suggests several longer-term reasons for this, among them the decline of class alignment and rise of individualism. I'd add three other factors:

- A mistaken factual base. The public under-estimate bosses' pay and over-estimate welfare benefits.

- Recessions usually make people more mean-spirited.

- Capitalism generates cognitive biases (ideologies) that result in hostility to welfare recipients.

As Taylor-Goody says, it doesn't need to be this way: "Alternative approaches that emphasise reciprocity, solidarity and inclusion are possible."

This poses the question: how do we get to such approaches from where we are? One possibility is to look to a leftist party to argue for them. But there are good reasons to expect the Labour party not to do this. Just as companies' marketing strategies rarely work by telling potential customers they are stupid, so political campaigns rarely do so. This is why Labour panders to some of the worst aspects of public opinion, on immigration or welfare, rather than outrightly opposes it. The Labour party is a managerialist marketing strategy, not a force for truth and justice.

But if Labour is not an agency for radical change, what is? Sure, there are a few bloggers and columnists who are trying to shift the Overton window, but these tend to preach to smallish groups of the already-converted.

This, of course, is not to deny that social attitudes can change. For example, during my lifetime, attitudes to gays has improved considerably. But I fear that this progress has been like Max Planck's view of scientific advance – it has happened one funeral at a time.

And herein lies a paradox of the left. Whilst we have spent decades advocating social change, we have remarkably few answers to the question: through what mechanisms, exactly, can it be achieved?

Reading through the details of what the girls were subjected to is enough to make anyone physically sick, and feel angry at how this was allowed to happen for so long.

Anger also makes people want to reach for easy answers so they can deal with it.

I’m aware that the far-right are trying to exploit these cases for politician gain. But I think the focus should always be on doing what is right and highlighting injustices, even if it raises some uncomfortable issues that can be exploited by extremists. In other words, the presence of the far-right should not lead us to blunt our criticisms or arguments.

To what extent is race a relevant factor in the exploitation?

Let’s look at some evidence first.

After the Rochdale case, the children’s commissioner in England conducted an inquiry into what could be learnt from the case. They published a short briefing paper and later an interim report. The Foreword said:

The vast majority of the perpetrators of this terrible crime are male. They range in age from as young as fourteen to old men. They come from all ethnic groups and so do their victims – contrary to what some may wish to believe. The failure of agencies to recognise this means that too many child victims are not getting the protection and support they so desperately need.

Moreover, of the backgrounds of the victims who gave evidence to the inquiry, 42% were white British and 28% were ethnic minorities. I’m assuming the remaining were mixed or unknown backgrounds.

During the Rochdale case the Judge said: “You preyed on girls because they were not part of your community or religion” — this is repeatedly cited by some people. But it’s also untrue. As was revealed after the ring-leader in the Rochdale case also ‘repeatedly raped an Asian girl over many years.‘

My point is not that race is irrelevant – but that it’s not relevant to why the girls were targeted.

In some of the cases of gang-related child grooming and rape, the men were primarily of Pakistani backgrounds. I suspect this is simply because they congregated together for work and to commit crime. There are other similar cases where the gangs of men have been exclusively white.

To my mind, the key question is: did they target white girls because of their skin colour and because they hated white girls, or simply because they found it easier to groom white girls? The fact that there are instances of black and Asian girls also being raped implies that in the Oxford (and other similar cases) – the men simply found it easier to prey on young white girls.

Of course, in the Oxford case the men may have deliberately targeted young white girls – I can’t read their minds. But generalising that Asian men are pre-disposed to targeting white girls make no sense given the evidence. Furthermore, these generalisations make no sense since the Jimmy Savile revelations and other cases where not only did rape and abuse take place, but many more people were involved in the cover-up.

But we can make one generalisation with some certainty: too many men still find it acceptable to exploit, groom and rape young girls without much regret. Rape culture remains a serious and widely prevalent problem and we need to do more to help and listen to the victims, rather than using them to score political points.

.

No further comment needed.

London’s Metropolitan Police have been criticised today for reports that they are buying two water cannons to target protesters.

The report in today’s Times says:

The Metropolitan Police has asked the Home Office to approve the acquisition of two German-made water cannon vehicles, capable of holding 9,000 litres each, which would be used to soak rioters with powerful jets of spray.

The purchase of a third cannon, which would be held as a “national asset” available to other police forces for deployment in emergency situations, is also being considered.

The Metropolitan Police had hoped to have the vehicles for next month in case of disorder arising from protests which are planned for London before the G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

It is understood that, although Home Office ministers are broadly in favour of the proposal, they have asked for more details on how the riot control weapon would be deployed.

The plans were slammed as “deeply worrying” by London Labour today, who are asking the Met Police chief Bernard Hogan-Howe to fully consult with the public before purchasing the water cannons.

London Assembly Member Joanne McCartney has written to the Commissioner asking for clarification on the proposals.

In a statement sent to Liberal Conspiracy today she said:

A monumental decision like this cannot be snuck through under the public’s nose. We need a full public debate on this move. This is deeply worrying and it’s an indication that the Met are unsure whether they could cope. We have a low number of police officers with 2,682 lost since May 2010 and 1846 PCSOs.

The evidence for the effectiveness of water cannons is very unclear. Against the widespread rioting we saw in London water cannons would have been of very limited, if any, use.

The Mayor and the Met also need to do more to improve public trust and confidence in the police and prevent trouble starting in the first place. I would be extremely concerned if we were to see water cannons used on London’s streets against the public.

She says she has written urgently to London’s Mayor too, asking if these reports are accurate, and what evidence they had that water cannons were effective.

As others pointed out on Twitter

“including lack of manoeuvrability, quick exhaustion of water supply, and vulnerability to attack.” Home Office written answer in 1987.

— Brian Williams (@BriW74) May 13, 2013

Transport for London (TfL) last week owned up and made public the actual purchase price of the New Bus For London (NBfL), aka Boris Bus.

And that price, at £354,500 per vehicle, makes the NBfL around £50,000 more expensive than a comparable off-the-shelf hybrid double decker. So, despite Bozza’s promises, the NBfL will not be price competitive with alternatives.

As there are to be 600 production examples of the NBfL, this gives a premium of £30 million. Added to this is the cost of the eight prototypes, which, at £11.77 million, gives a premium over eight comparable hybrids of £9.37 million.

We cannot validate the claims for superior fuel consumption, as TfL have thus far declined to release the figures. So that’s a running premium total of £39.37 million.

For that money, Londoners could have had another 131 hybrid double deckers. And it gets worse: far from being the “greenest ever” bus, the NBfL will have to be retro-fitted with the means to enable it to meet 2014 emissions standards. So that means a further extra cost.

However, TfL would benefit if the design were to be sold to any other potential customers. What are the prospects of this? Sadly, they are precisely zero. This can be gleaned from the unwillingness of operators to take the vehicles on: uniquely for London, TfL is having to purchase them outright and then impose them on operators.

But it is in running costs that the truly scandalous scale of waste can be seen. Each NBfL requires a second crew member when its rear platform is in operation, and this has been estimated to add a cost of £62,000 per vehicle per year.

Do the math, as they say: over the 14-year lifetime of the 608-strong fleet, this will land Londoners with a whopping £527.74 million bill in total.

That’s an awfully large premium payment for Bozza’s vanity legacy.

The question begs itself as to how he has been allowed to get away with it: spraying £567 million up the wall merely for something that is “different”, “iconic”, or which may impress a few tourists.

Whilst on the other GDP per capita figures suggested that the hole we are currently in is much bigger than previously thought.

GDP per capita measures economic output per person. In many ways this is the most sensible way to measure growth over the medium term and the best way to compare growth across nations.

As the IMF mission arrives in the UK to assess our economic performance, the TUC have used IMF data to look at GDP per capita over the advanced economies.

As can be seen in the table below the UK’s performance is abysmal.

Over the decade 2008 to 2017 the UK will experience, according to the most recent IMF forecasts, GDP per capita growth of 0.0%.

In real terms GDP per capita was £23,777.32p in 2008; by 2017 it will have reached just £23,768.25p. In terms of growth per head the UK is set to have its own ‘lost decade’.

The data really tells us three things.

First that the UK experienced an especially severe recession in 2008/09, second that the recovery has been historically weak and drawn out and thirdly that in terms of the ‘global race’ that the government is so keen to talk about, we are doing especially badly. Amongst the G7 only Italy is expected to underperform the UK.

If there is a global race, then we are certainly losing.

The Resolution Foundation has calculated that median real wages are set to be well below 2008 levels in 2017. In fact real median wages are set to be below 1999 levels as late as 2017.

We face a lost decade of growth and two lost decades of living standards, we are losing the global race, deficit reduction is widely off track and yet the Chancellor still refuses to change course.

—
A longer version is at Touchstone blog