That sentence comes from this Guardian article which reports on the, wait a minute, let me find the right words, supremely idiotic, inappropriate, insensitive idea from Michael Gove that we should spend £60 million of our hard earned taxes into a new yacht for the Queen to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee, and how we should push the boat out (sorry) on celebrations to cheer us all up a bit.
Well, I'm sure all these people who are losing their jobs, or the disabled people whose benefits are being cut, would be delighted to see that.
Surprise?
Is that really all?
I really hope that that was code for "The Liberal Democrats told Michael Gove to go away and boil his head."
And it seems from Nick Clegg's reaction that that is pretty much what we did do. Again the Guardian reports that he said:
"I suspect more people in the country would think, given there's very little money around, that this isn't top of their list of priorities for the use of scarce resources."
This whole saga is almost like a joke in some ways. Surely to goodness a Cabinet Minister couldn't have meant that as a serious proposal. Was the whole episode just cooked up to give us all something to be outraged about.
If we want something real to be annoyed about, we might want to read Spartacus Stories. This new blog is a follow up to the Spartacus report I wrote about last week. This casts doubt over the rationale behind the Government's proposals to reform Disability Living Allowance by cutting it by 20% by 2015. Peers vote on these measure this week.
The Guardian (again) reports that Nick Clegg and others have been trying to do something about the Benefit cap which is also up for debate in the Lords this week. While this is to be welcomed, I would like to have seen our people do more to fight against the cuts in sickness benefits.
Peers should expect to be questioned on their decisions at Party Conference in March. Some good people voted with the Government on these changes and I want to hear their reasons for choosing to vote with the Government rather than with the policy decided by Conference.
Students in orange boiler suits took to the streets in Edinburgh on Saturday to remind people that last week marked the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the US's military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. This is where 171 men are held, most without any charges being brought under a brutal regime where there have been reports of torture.
Among them is Shakar Aamer,a British resident who's been there almost since the start. He's never been charged with a crime and was cleared for release initially 5 years ago. Why on earth has he not been returned to his family?
Amnesty have produced a report to mark the anniversary which makes grim and unpleasant reading.
I spoke to one of the students who had organised the event and she told me that many people were surprised to find out that Guantanamo was still open. They thought President Obama had shut it.
It just goes to show how important awareness raising events like that are.
Apart from the students in boiler suits, who posed here for me....
..... there was a performance by a local peace choir.
If you're interested in taking further action, you could write to foreign office minister and Lib Dem MP Jeremy Browne to ask him to ramp up the pressure on the US to get Shaker Aamer released.
Also, again if you haven't already, make sure friends know that Guantanamo is still open for business.
So far, only the Sun in its usual inimitable style, appears to be reporting the story I heard on Good Morning Scotland that Tom Harris, pugnacious Labour MP for Glasgow South has been forced to stand down from his post as Labour's New Media Adviser. This is because he put out a You Tube video satirising the comments by Alex Salmond's parliamentary aide Joan McAlpine that the unionist parties were "anti Scottish."
The video was yet another Hitler parody. The Guardian wrote a couple of years ago about how this phenomenon of using that scene from the movie Downfall to satirise current events was getting a bit old. In fact it's not the first time it's been used to make fun of events in Scottish politics. Just after the SNP won Glasgow East, that scene was subtitled to make it seem as if the news was being brought to Gordon Brown and his subsequent tantrum. It wasn't just comparing Brown to Hitler, but was highly offensive to the people of the constituency who had just rejected Labour. A few months later, there was another one after Labour held Glenrothes depicting Salmond as Hitler.
The difference with "Joan's Downfall" of course was that neither of these previous efforts had any clear links to anyone in either the SNP or Labour. We all watched them, we may or may not have guiltily laughed at some elements, but we couldn't pin them on anyone. Tom brazenly published this one on his You Tube channel.
I had a conversation with Tom Harris on Twitter last week about how I wanted the referendum debate to be conducted in passionately positive language. He disagreed with me, saying that "attack dogs" were needed. I'm not convinced raising the temperature of the debate is particularly helpful. although certainly the SNP's plans need to be robustly analysed.
Tom is many things, but stupid is not one of them. I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing and that he would have to resign for it. But how big a tragedy is that? New Media Adviser? It's hardly ruling the world, is it? Thing is, he associates himself, on new media, with something pretty tasteless. Within hours, before there is even that much of a fuss, Johann Lamont has him in and tells him to sling his hook.
This does not compare well with the SNP leadership standing full square behind Joan McAlpine. Her comments were much more divisive and sinister. If anyone was ever more deserving of the sack, I've yet to come across them.
You could be forgiven for thinking that Harris had done this on purpose to underline the distinction.
Our politicians have a responsibility to acknowledge this danger and commit to conducting themselves in a way that minimises such antagonism. With the eyes of the world and the eyes of history upon us, each side should bear in mind that no matter which vision of Scotland’s future wins out in the end, it has to be a united Scotland that gets on with the business of making it work.
Gerry Hassan suggested that those on the Nationalist side should do more to understand those coming from the other point of view. And I'd add that a bit of reciprocation is also necessary.
We all have to live with each other when this is over. This referendum can't be allowed to fracture and polarise our society, our communities, our families or our friendships. We can't allow our lives to be poisoned by intemperate and personally offensive language.
Whether Tom Harris' latest stunt is contrived or not, Joan McAlpine, guilty in my view of much worse and unrepentant, should not still be in a job as close to the First Minister as she is. Salmond's condoning of her behaviour is a strong signal to others who hold the same view that they can do what they like without fear of sanction.
My friend Sandra shared this amazing story on Facebook.
It charts how a girl with Autism at 11 suddenly started to communicate with her parents by typing on her computer.
She's provided amazing insights as to how autism feels on the inside.
The love for her and belief in her of her parents is unconditional and so strong. They've also been able to provide her with intensive therapy from a very young age.
How many autistic kids in this country can get therapy like that, though? Parents can struggle to get even a basic education that meets their needs. This should make us think again.
I'm not a great one for quoting Burns, after he urged henpecked husbands to take a switch to their wife, but this line from To a Louse seems to fit.
If you haven't already seen it, this Taiwanese take on this week's independence row is absolutely hilarious. They certainly seem to understand Scotland well - because we have spaceships fuelled on Irn Bru in our streets all the time, don't you know?
And did you know that the referendum had timed to coincide with the 700th anniversary of Mel Gibson's death?
When this was pointed out to the makers, they simply said "it's funnier this way."
Taking people from their families, transporting them to the other side of the world and locking them up without hint of charge or trial for years on end.
Who would do that?
Sickeningly, still the good old US of A.
Obama promised to shut the place, but has only protected US citizens.
Amnesty's campaign to protest against the US's grim military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay comes to Edinburgh today. From 12-3, they will be encouraging people to sign their global petition at the corner of Princes Street and North Bridge.
I'm going to go in for a wee while.
If you're wondering why it's an issue, watch Amnesty's video.
Treating people in this way is absolutely wrong and, frankly, does nothing to stop terrorism.
I make absolutely no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people and the democratic mandate that they gave us to hold a referendum at a time of our choosing, which, as the First Minister said, would be the latter half of the parliamentary session. The sight of those parties cosying up on the sofas of various Scottish television studios will really alarm the people of Scotland.
I have to say I was livid when I first saw Joan McAlpine's comments that those who don't agree with all the details of the SNP's plans for the independence referendum were "anti-Scottish." To suggest that I want to act against the interests of the country I love, where I was born, which I yearned for so much it actually hurt during the 11 years I had to live away from it, simply because I don't agree with SNP plans for the independence referendum is outrageous.
They say you should sleep on things before you say react. Well, I have, and I'm still livid, hurt and saddened at this poisonous attack on political opponents. I really can't stand this sort of thing, no matter who it comes from.
I have defended the SNP on several occasions against jibes from Labour that they were not patriotic. It literally makes my flesh creep when this sort of stuff is used as a political weapon. Can we not just all accept that we all love and care for Scotland, whatever view we have?
Nobody doubts the SNP's mandate to hold a referendum on independence, but if wanting that poll to be fair, clear and legal, expecting both my Governments to work together to achieve that, makes me anti Scottish, then, really, what is the world coming to?
What's more worrying is that senior figures in the SNP have tolerated this sort of language. Nicola Sturgeon defended her on Question Time last night and even the brightest of their new generation, Humza Yousaf, while saying that he wouldn't have used that language himself, didn't rebuke her anywhere near enough on Call Kaye this morning. That is more of a problem to me than the remarks themselves. Nicola referred on Question Time to those who talk Scotland down - that's pretty much become code for anyone who disagrees with SNP policy. So much for them listening and being inclusive.
If the SNP allow this sort of language to go unchecked, as my friend Allan pointed out on Facebook yesterday, it could be the biggest impediment to them being successful in their referendum. I don't quite agree with him on that because I think the evidence will prove the benefits of the Union but he has a point.
But, sadly, the story doesn't end here.
As the debate unfolds over the coming weeks, there will be a clear dividing line between patriots and nationalists.
This came from new Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, in the same debate and has gone largely unnoticed in the media. To my mind, that's just as bad. I don't want to hear this kind of stuff from anybody.
How rubbish are we going to feel after 3 years if the debate has been full of bitterness and poison? I want to come out of this process uplifted by ideas expressed in a passionate and positive way. This kind of row suits the SNP, though, - for yet another few news cycles they are not challenged on the mechanics of independence, its practical effect on our daily lives. Sadly, I have a horrible feeling the run up to the referendum will be permeated with such comments.
Joan McAlpine is turning herself into the Jan Moir of the SNP. She's exhibited the same sort of narrow minded intolerance that Moir does with her ill informed rants. If she can't sincerely apologise and withdraw her remarks, then she really should be sacked from her job as the First Minister's Parliamentary Liaison Officer. I won't be holding my breath for either of these things to happen, though.
Come the day after the referendum, we're all going to have to get on and live together, whatever the result. There will be a winning side and a losing side. The divisions will need to be healed. That process will be much easier if we avoid corrosive language, conduct the debate with civility and mutual respect, acknowledging each others views, right to hold them and genuine love for Scotland. It'll get passionate, angry and fiery at times, but there are limits to what's acceptable and we should all make efforts not to cross the line.
It seems that our esteemed leader, Mr Rennie and I had similar thoughts about our First Minister's grandstanding on the news last night, bursting forth with information about his preferred date for the referendum.
My second thought* was along the lines of "what a bloody cheek, he should have told Parliament first."
And so I tweeted:
This is a special pet hate of mine because I used to get very, very annoyed when Labour ministers used to announce their plans on Andrew Marr or some other media outlet. It just smacked of disrespect for the Parliament the Government was accountable to.
Like Snow White's stepmother, enraged by the cool performance of another, Salmond clearly decided drastic action was necessary, not quite thinking through how it should properly be done. It's the same sort of mentality that a referendum overseen by a group of people chosen by his government will do fine, regardless of whether it's actually legal or not. When you have an office, you have to be really careful not to exceed its powers.
Salmond's news interviews, where he appeared in front of a cosy fire and saltires at Bute House, and his announcement of the referendum date appear not to have been expected by his MPs who were in the Commons listening to Moore. It had all the impression of being done completely on the spur of the moment. Why the need for the high drama? Why not just make a statement to Parliament on Wednesday lunchtime?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, Scotland’s ministers at Westminster set out the United Kingdom Government’s proposals for a fair, legal and decisive referendum in two statements: one to the House of Commons and one to the House of Lords. They took 47 questions from members of Parliament. In Scotland, the First Minister announced his date for the referendum, not to the Scottish Parliament but to Sky News—although Brian Taylor disputes that fact outside.
Given that the decision relates to what the First Minister called the biggest question for Scots in 300 years, and given that the Scottish Government is always concerned about the respect agenda, has the Scottish Government made a request to make a statement to this Parliament today? Is there any reason why you, Presiding Officer, would not be able to respond positively to such a request if it were made by the Scottish ministers?
Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick said she'd not had any request for a statement.
Willie said afterwards:
“This shows the SNP’s disrespect for the Scottish Parliament. Instead of choosing to make a statement to the Scottish Parliament on Scotland’s biggest question for 300 years, Mr Salmond instead chose to make his statement to the media. “With the SNP’s majority in Parliament, it is obvious that they feel they can do anything. “The bulldozer is out of the garage.”
* my first thought was to be reminded of Princess Diana going out wearing a very sexy dress the night Charles admitted adultery to Jonathan Dimbleby in a clear (and successful) attempt to steal the limelight.
As you might know, I have been very concerned at the Government's proposals to limit contributory Employment and Support Allowance for those in the Work Related Activity Group to one year.
Well, the BBC News Channel has just reported that the House of Lords have defeated this proposal - and by a fairly whopping majority, 234 to 186.
Let's hope the Government has the sense not to try to bring this back and finds another way to save the money that doesn't involve taking it off people who are too sick to work.
I don't know if and how many Liberal Democrats were involved in this, but as soon as I found out, I'll let you know.
Ok, an update. It turns out the Government were defeated 3 times tonight on the time limit (which appears according to the Guardian to have been increased to 2 years), to exempt cancer patients from the limit and to ensure that young disabled people are allowed to claim Contributory ESA even though they've never worked. The Government had wanted to remove that entitlement.
There were fewer Liberal Democrat rebels than I would have liked to see. I am particularly disappointed that 51 peers voted against the express wishes of our Conference for a one year time limit. I suspect that they will say that the 2 year limit was as arbitrary as the one year limit, though.
Bearing in mind that these votes may well be repeated in the Lords, I would advise that we need to be very nice to them, because we want to change their minds. So let's not be too angry, listen to what they have to say, because they are good people.
Anyway, the rebels on the time limit were Jenny Tonge and Dee Doocey, on the Cancer exemption Eric Avebury, Jenny Tonge, Shirley Williams, Tim Clement-Jones and Dee Coocey and on the disabled youth entitlement Roger Roberts, Dee Doocey and Jenny Tonge.
There's a fair bit of praise out there for the Secretary of State today.
Mr Moore made a good fist of things yesterday. His tone was conciliatory, measured, reasonable and, above all, it presented what looked like a cast-iron legal case for allowing Mr Salmond to conduct a binding referendum — but only if he agrees to including only one question on the ballot paper, restricts the voting to the over-18s and allows the Electoral Commission to oversee the poll.
Given that Mr Moore has struck a measured tone and Mr Salmond is relatively conciliatory, there must be room for the two governments to negotiate. The Scottish people will expect their governments to work together to agree to the test of their opinion all are agreed will happen.
Michael Moore's statement to the House of Commons on the question of how a referendum on Scotland's constitutional future may be held was clear, composed, sensible and modest. In other words it was everything that the last few days have not been. The Prime Minister in particular has not distinguished himself in recent times. Perhaps it is fairer (it is certainly kinder) to presume this was just as innocent a cock-up as any Prime Ministerial cock-up can be; regardless is was a desperate piece of floundering that made Mr Cameron look something of a chump.
Today belongs to Michael Moore. After a torrid few days on the Scottish political scene, he told the House of Commons this afternoon that he was launching a consultation aimed at "empowering the people of Scotland to participate in a legal referendum".
In the view of the Westminster Government (and as I wrote earlier the highest echelons of the SNP and proper lawyers), the Scottish Government does not currently have the legal power to hold a referendum. We've been hearing for days that the UK Government was therefore going to take over the whole thing, dictate terms, basically run the referendum. Maybe that's what David Cameron wanted to do, but thankfully the Lib Dem insistence on reason won the day. For Mike didn't have some sort of High Noon style showdown. He announced a consultation, open till 9th March, open to all Scots to complete. I suspect you'll be hearing a bit more of that on here over the next few weeks.
The document asks people for their views on issues like timing, the question(s), whether it should be supervised by the Electoral Commission and who should have the vote.
While Mike was still on his feet in the Commons taking a good hour's worth of questions, Alex Salmond, in a blatant attempt to grab the headlines for tomorrow, went live on the news and announced that the Government intended to hold the referendum in the Autumn of 2014. The whole thing put me in mind of that moment in in 1994 when Diana went out in an amazing dress as Charles gave his interview to Jonathan Dimbleby. Except, clearly, Eck isn't quite as sexy.
I also thought it was a bit rude of the First Minister to so hurriedly announce the date on the news, rather than to his own Parliament. There was no reason he had to do it then - it could have waited until tomorrow.
If the SNP's preferred date sticks, that's almost 3 years away. I am almost at the end of my tether after 8 months of bickering and snidiness. If I'm going to save my sanity, this campaign has to up its game in terms of quality, positivity and passion on both sides.
Anyway, as has become my custom, I've compiled my tweets of the occasion along with some others into a Storify thingy which is below. Now, I know I've made a couple of howlers, when my brain wandered, but I'm sure you get my drift. Successional clearly means successful. You might like my conversation with Tom Harris, Labour's self-styled attack dog about the need for a positive campaign.
I'm sure that Mike Moore will have won over a lot of respect today for a very people centred, positive performance which compares well with the First Minister's Diva antics.
We should really be talking about the heartbreaking and appalling report on child poverty this morning. We should be bringing forth our ideas and listening to people who know what they're talking about on how to give kids a better start in life. These aren't just numbers. For 1 in 5 kids not to have enough food, or warmth, or clothes, or books, or toys, whose lives are so difficult they don't have that freedom, that joy of just being a child, is just awful. Every single politician should write down these facts about child poverty on a fluorescent piece of paper and pin it on their office wall. And every day as they head home they should think about what they've done, what idea they've had to deal with it.
We're not concentrating on that, though. Certain of the political elite are kicking lumps out of each other on an issue on which there is actually more agreement than they would like to let on - the legalities of the forthcoming referendum.
It could all have been so different. You see, everybody knows that the Scottish Parliament doesn't really have the powers it needs to hold an unchallengably legal referendum. The SNP's chief strategist Stephen Noon knows it. Amid all the bluster in his post yesterday, you can see that he does. He talks about mischievous people with deep pockets challenging the legality of a referendum. If he can see that it's on dodgy legal ground, then you can bet your life Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are well aware of the fact. Nationalist blogger and legal genius Lallands Peat Warrior knows it too and you'd be well advised just to take his word for it when it comes to the law.
Now, the UK Government could just have left the SNP to deal with all the legal challenges from the people with the deep pockets. That would just have been a total waste of time and money when actually the destiny of Scotland is something that should be decided by the people in the ballot box, not by judges in a courtroom.
Either that, or they could have waited for the SNP to ask for the power to hold the referendum to be devolved. It's funny that they haven't, cos they've demanded every other power under the sun. But they understandably haven't wanted to admit the reality of the situation and the thought of asking Westminster for any favours would not have sat easily with the First Minister.
So, an offer by the Westminster Government to give the power to hold this referendum actually gets the SNP Government out of a big hole. And they know it. You might think they'd be more appreciative.
How much better would it have been if the powers had been offered and that offer discussed in an atmosphere of mutual civility and respect? Is it really too much to hope for that politicians behave like grown ups?
Actually, no. Because Nick Clegg, Mike Moore and Willie Rennie get it. They have been pretty reasonable. Rather than get in on the bunfight yesterday, Willie was reminding us all who mattered - the people, and how important it was that Scotland's future should be decided in the ballot box, not the Judge's chambers.
“It is in everyone’s interests, including the SNP, that the referendum is legally sound. Scotland’s future should be determined by the voters, not the courts.“I accept the SNP have a mandate to hold a referendum on independence but they have failed to recognise the clear legal issues that arise from the Scottish Parliament holding a constitutional referendum.“To avoid the strong possibility of a legal challenge some cooperation with Westminster is essential so that a referendum has the legal force and effect necessary to be seen as legitimate.“We do not want a situation to arise when this issue of vital importance to the future direction of Scotland is finally decided in the courts rather than at the ballot box.”
On Good Morning Scotland this morning he continued with his fair and reasonable line:
In just over half an hour, Mike Moore will make his statement on referendum issues to the Commons. I don't expect that he will be anything other than reasonable. It simply isn't in his DNA.
Where Cameron waded in with all the subtlety of an elephant who'd been on the cooking sherry, Mike, Willie and Nick Clegg, it appears, have been trying to clear up the mess. The Guardian reports that the Liberal Democrats were less than happy with Cameron's efforts and made sure that the 18 month time limit was kicked into touch. This is another good example of how effective we are within that Coalition.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of time limit - this power is presumably being given for this referendum only. A temporary devolution of a power by definition has to have some sort of expiry date. For me that date would most sensibly be at the end of either the Westminster or the Holyrood Parliament in 2015 or 2016.
The idea that the Electoral Commission, which is good enough to oversee every other poll on these shores should be side-stepped for the referendum, is utterly ridiculous. We don't need another Commission set up by Salmond to run it. That does not seem right or fair in any way and it looks dodgy even if it isn't.
Anyway, I shall come back to this one much later after the statement. I wish they wouldn't put these things on at School Run time.
I knocked this up in about ten minutes in between getting the kids' breakfast yesterday morning and taking them to school.
I am writing as a Liberal Democrat member to ask you to vote against the Government’s proposal to impose a one year time limit for contributory ESA for people in the Work Related Activity Group when it comes up in the House, currently planned for Wednesday of this week.
I believe that this is wrong for a number of reasons. I spoke at a fringe meeting on this issue, run by RNIB Scotland, at Scottish Conference last November. Their incoming chair, Ken Reed, asked us to imagine being blinded in an accident tomorrow. He said it would take a year to get used just to being blind, let alone having to compete in an ever more difficult labour market. Four years as an MP’s caseworker convinces me that there are many people, with quite serious conditions who are not well enough to work, who have been put into WRAG, despite the Harrington reviews.
I personally know a number of people who have worked for their whole lives, only to fall ill in their 50s. They stand to lose £400 a month which they can’t afford to lose. Had they been on benefits when they fell ill they would still qualify for income related ESA. This does not fit in with the Government’s stated aim that work should always pay.
The income limit for income related ESA is not very high – well below average earnings. Being ill can be costly – for example, if you can’t move around much, you’ll need to keep your house warmer. If you need regular hospital treatment, transport costs can quickly mount up.
Liberal Democrat conference has made its position on this issue quite clear. Last September a motion was passed overwhelmingly which called on Liberal Democrats in Government to oppose arbitrary time limits for contributory ESA.
I hope that you will agree that the above factors make a compelling case for voting against the proposed time limit.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Best wishes
Caron Lindsay
Have you done yours, yet?
If you want to know why, read my post at Diary of a Benefit Scrounger and you can use the list of e-mails that some helpful soul has put in the comments. It literally couldn't be simpler and it could make the difference.
Disability campaigners, including Diary of a Benefit Scrounger author Sue Marsh have today released a report, Responsible Reform, which is highly critical of the Government's plans to reform disability benefits.
Under the plans, Disability Living Allowance will be renamed Personal Independence Payments, one level of support will be removed altogether, the qualifying period you have to be ill for before you can claim doubles from 3 to 6 months and there's a new assessment procedure. And we know how well the assessments for Employment and Support Allowance work now, don't we? Not.
The Report, Responsible Reform, alleges that the Government broke its own Code of Practice on Consultation by not giving enough time for responses, doing it through Christmas and introducing the completed Bill to Parliament before the consultation was complete.
While that's not good practice for the Government, the Report does reveal that the vast majority of responses to the Consultation, not released but obtained by its authors under Freedom of Information, were totally against the Government's plans. If they had done the consultation properly, frankly, I doubt it would have made much difference.
The Report analyses the responses in some detail. Many of course come from disability charities and organisations who clearly know what they are talking about. That they object to a 20% cut in benefits over 5 years is hardly surprising. They wouldn't be doing their job properly if they agreed to a cut for their clients. What surprised me was that one of the best, most articulate, well informed responses came from Tory London Mayor Boris Johnson.
Responsible Reform also challenges the figures that form the basis of the Government's rationale for the reform, that the amount spent on DLA has gone up by 30% over 8 years. They argue that the rise is in fact only 13%.
Sue Marsh took part with the relevant minister Maria Miller on the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning on Radio 5 Live. You can listen to the exchange here:
Maria Miller seems very keen to imply ta high level of fraud on DLA, but doesn't provide much in the way of hard evidence to back that up. In fact Sue says that the rate of proven fraud is in fact 0.5%. Responsible Reform cites the Benefit Integrity Project, an exercise aimed at determining whether benefits were being appropriately paid way back in the 90s which came to similar, low fraud conclusions.
I think that our parliamentarians should be arguing for a rethink of the Government's plans and that the Bill should be put on hold while the evidence is re-examined. Sue Marsh was keen to make the point today that DLA is a benefit which is aimed at keeping people in work. Few people would argue that it works perfectly. Indeed, our own now Sir Bob Russell last year highlighted a particularly stupid decision to refuse DLA that meant a man with no use of his legs couldn't get to work because his mobility car was taken away. The Government has failed to convince people that its reforms will stop these wrong decisions being made.
I guess one thought that's crossed my mind several times recently is that you can see the different approach taken by Tory and Lib Dem ministers. The State Pension had its biggest ever annual increase this year thanks to Lib Dem minister Steve Webb's "triple lock". However, over at the Tory wing of the Department of Work and Pensions, we end up with time limited ESA and flawed proposals for disability benefits from Chris Grayling and Maria Miller.
The Welfare Reform Bill has much to commend it in terms of the Universal Credit which will end the poverty trap which keeps people on benefits because they'd lose money by taking a job. That reform can't come at the expense of ill judged cuts to benefits for the sick and disabled. Today's publication of the Spartacus Report, backed by charities such as Scope, the Disability Alliance and Mind, calls into question the Government's rationale for this reform and as such it's important to look at this again. Alternatively they can come up with evidence to reassure disabled people that their needs will continue to be met. They haven't, however, managed to do that so far.
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger has picked up my post from the other day about writing to Lib Dem peers ahead of the vote on time limiting contributory Employment and Support Allowance in the House of Lords, scheduled for this coming Wednesday. What's really useful is that a lovely and beautiful person has, in the comments to that, put in a list of peers' e-mail addresses, ready to cut and paste.
We know that this can be effective - the votes on the Welfare Reform Bill have been very tight, and changing the minds of even a couple of them could make the difference.
There are two main reasons why I feel they should change their minds:
Firstly, entitlement should be on need, not an arbitrary time limit. The threshold at which you are no longer entitled to income related ESA is very small and well below average income. To take nearly £400 a month away from people who are sick is simply not on. Remember what Ken Reed, chair of RNIB Scotland, said last year at our Scottish Conference. If you were blinded by an accident today, it would take you a whole year to get used to that, let alone thinking about finding a job.
Secondly, Liberal Democrat Conference has made it clear that it wants Liberal Democrats to oppose arbitrary time limits.
Mike German, our leading peer on this issue wrote an article on Liberal Democrat Voice the other day which didn't tackle this issue at all, nor has he come back and attempted to justify it. Maybe because that's simply not possible. If you read the comments on that piece, you'll see one man describe how his wife, who had a stroke 3 years ago, has been put into the Work Related Activity Group against opinion of every professional who works with her. They will lose £400 a month from April. He makes the point that had she been on benefits prior to her stroke, she would still be entitled to ESA, so their income must be really low for her to lose it now. So much for this Government's aim of making work pay.
We have very little time left to make a difference. Write to those Lords now.
Last year I started taking a photo a day (hence PAD) and posting it online. I did a weekly summary here. It only lasted until the end of March. I hope I'll be able to do better this year.
Here is the first week's offerings
New Year's Day Trifle
2nd Shaggy Puppy Dog
3rd Neat Puppy Dog after her first grooming
4th Tian Tian having a disco nap
5th - replacing a long since lost treasure of my childhood
6th Last view of the Christmas Tree for another year
First of all, let's look at what Nick Clegg actually said when he came up to Scotland yesterday:
“I would describe myself as a devolutionist, someone who believes in a strong Scotland, in a strong United Kingdom, but where Scotland increasingly takes on more and more of its own powers and responsibilities.
“All the evidence suggests that is the mainstream of opinion and the extremists are those who either think that we need to yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow, or those who say there should be no further change at all,” Mr Clegg said.“Well, I don’t agree with either of those two extremes.
“I and my party are very much situated in the centre ground of Scottish public opinion, which says let’s retain the strengths of being part of the United Kingdom because we are stronger together and weaker apart in a very uncertain world.
“But, within that, give Scotland more and more authority and power to do its own thing.”
It all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
You see, tearing apart the UK is not just something simple that can be achieved in a few seconds, like pulling off a sticking plaster. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but the SNP are strong on rhetoric but light on the detail. And if you look at the options available for Scotland's future governance, there is no arguing that independence is not one of the extremes. I mean, you can't actually go beyond it, can you?
It's so much easier for the lazy SNP press officer to jump up in horror and complain that the nasty great unionist oppressor is calling them names than it is to actually explain how an independent Scotland would work, and be achieved. I mean how exactly do you divvy up the pensions system, the benefits system and set up new equivalents in Scotland? How do you police Scotland's new border? What about defence? We all remember Inverclyde SNP candidate Anne McLaughlin not having the first clue about how many air bases an independent Scotland would have.
The fact that the SNP have had literally decades to work this stuff out and aren't sharing the results of their deliberations with us does not bode well for the future.
David Torrance recently reminded us in Total Politics magazine how the SNP barely talked about independence in the run up to both 2007 and last year's election to avoid scaring the voters. Since winning their majority in May, of course, they've talked of little else. They've done it by picking fights with Westminster at every opportunity, but haven't included that many facts in with their rhetoric.
Trying to pretend that independence is just an option we can casually ease ourselves in to is absolute mince. They want the voters to think that splitting up the UK is just a walk in the park.
The SNP think that they can win the referendum by a mixture of sparkly optimism, playing the victim, blaming Westminster for everything. It's in their interests to keep the focus off the detail. And having a go at Nick Clegg is a good way of going about it.
It's also a good way of deflecting attention from the real reason for Nick's visit - to promote the UK Government's Youth Contract. Willie Rennie has been trying ever since it was announced to get the SNP to say they'll support it and they've been, guess what, pretty evasive.
Willie said yesterday:
“The Youth Contract is a great example of how the Coalition Government is working to help Scottish young people at this tough time for the economy.
“Recent figures have shown that youth unemployment is rising faster in Scotland than across the rest of the UK so the Scottish Government should embrace the youth contract as a way to reverse this worrying trend.
“Today’s young people are the next generation of taxpayers that will help get the economy back on firm ground. We need measures that help them to get up and get on and the Youth Contract is a vital part of this process.
“The Youth Contract is the right policy at the right time and I’m pleased Nick Clegg could come to help promote it today.”
Having said all of the above, I actually do think that who says something can be as important as what they say. By having Nick use the "extremist" line, however right it is, it gives that lazy SNP press officer a shot at goal. Nick should maybe have talked up the possibility, touted before Christmas, of enabling legislation to clear up any doubt about the referendum result, something that if it happens will come from a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State. He could have concentrated on all the things the UK Government are doing to benefit Scotland. He should have concentrated more on us not being a unionist party.
There's no doubt that independence is an extreme option, and that line needs to get out, but I think it would have been better if Willie, not Nick, had said it. The SNP wouldn't have had the same possibility for comeback and as it is they have successfully managed to detract a little from Nick's visit.
UK Ministers have every right to talk about Scottish matters and express their concerns about independence. They need to have a wee think about the wisest and most effective way to get those messages out, though.
1 The worrying kidnapping of Red Cross aid worker Khalil Dale in Pakistan. The profile showed someone who has spent his whole life working in war zones. He had taken part in a BBC documentary where he talked of watching people starve to death in Somalia. Let's hope he is released safe and well, soon.
2. And I'll accept that my reaction to this second story is exacerbated in the context of the above. Ambulance workers have turned down a settlement which would have given them a one-off payment of £1500 then £100 every time their meal breaks were disturbed by a call out. These discussions came about because of the death of Tomintoul woman Mandy Mathieson from a heart attack. The ambulance called for, even though it was not far from her house didn't leave till the staff has finished their break.
I have to say I find that one hard to understand. I barely had a lunch break in the 4 years of my last job, simply because that's when people tended to come in to see me because that's when they were available. It was just how things were. I have no doubt I could have asked them to wait, but that didn't seem right especially as most people had serious, stressful issues to deal with.
It makes me wonder what life as ambulance crew is like if they can turn down what appears to be a generous offer. Is there an unpleasant management style in the Service? What lies behind it? I had a look at the rates of pay for paramedics and I have to say I was surprised that they earned so little given the level of skill they have to have and the diverse range of trauma, from heart attacks to delivering babies to horrendous road accidents they deal with. They seem to get between 21 & 34 thousand, but that higher figure is only for senior paramedics.
I am not sure it's wise, though, for ambulance staff to conflate the meal break issue with other grievances. If more lives are lost, the public will find it hard to sympathise with the service. However, flexibility on this will reassure the public and more likely win support for the other stuff. In an emergency, every minute matters. Nobody knows that more than paramedics. If they show no flexibility on this, they put lives at risk. That's the bottom line.
