If @UKLabour lasts a 1,000 years then May 1940 will always be one of its finest hours … There is no Left or Right in a foxhole @JeremyCorbyn … What Would #Labour’s Bevin Have Thought of #Corbyn’s Request for My Views on #Syria

Standard

If Labour lasts a 1,000 years then May 1940 will always be one its finest hours …
There is no Left or Right in a foxhole Jeremy Corbyn …

I am convinced he would have thought twice about extending the Royal Air Force’s strikes from Iraq into Syria, but I am even more convinced that he would shape any response to ISIS in the terms of this philosophy that he expounded in 1950:

“Foreign policy is a thing you have to bring down to its essence as it applies to an individual. It is something that is great and big: it is common sense and humanity as it applies to my affairs and to yours, because it is somebody and somebody’s kindred that are being persecuted and punished and tortured, and they are defenceless. That is a fact.”

I mention Bevin for two reasons, he is more in tune with those who vote Labour today than is Jeremy Corbyn and he was in very much the same position in his own day. He also persuaded the Labour Leader of his time, considered to be the one with whom Corbyn has the most in common, to resign as Leader of the Labour Party.

He addressed George Lansbury thus:

“You are placing … the movement in an absolutely wrong position by hawking your conscience round from body to body asking to be told what to do with it.”

They say history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce. Is Corbyn now setting the stage for a farce? Bevin ended the tragedy of the early 1930s thus:

“(George) Lansbury has been going about dressed in saint’s clothing for years waiting for martyrdom. I set fire to the faggots.”

Lansbury’s successor was Major Clement Attlee.

I am ever more certain that Corbyn does not look at how policy, foreign or domestic, applies to an individual. He thinks in terms of abstracts.

Corbyn recently said, “How dare Cameron’s Conservatives pretend that they speak for Britain.” I assume that this was an attempt to challenge any suggestion that Corbyn, personally, is unpatriotic. Corbyn went on to remark:

“We stand for this country’s greatest traditions: the suffragettes and the trade unions.. the Britain of Mary Wollstonecraft, Shelley, Alan Turing and the Beatles… and perhaps our finest Olympian – and a Somalian refugee – Mo Farah.. an Arsenal fan of course.

And for the working people of this country who fought fascism.. built the welfare state.. and turned this land into an industrial powerhouse.

The real patriots.”

Setting aside the fact that Corbyn’s idiosyncratic list is one requiring many footnotes, he succeeds in making his definition of patriotism an exclusive one. He divides when he should be seeking to unite, even in the margins of quite a lengthy, rambling speech. Please, Seumas Milne, I beg of you, get Jeremy Corbyn enrolled on some public speaking and presentational skills courses, pronto! And fire his speechwriters whilst you are it!

Corbyn could not, it seems, bring himself around to put the case, the extremely credible case, that, without the support of Major Attlee and Arthur Greenwood in May 1940, Winston Churchill might well have been forced to sue for terms with Hitler by the leaders of the rump of the Conservative Party, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. Churchill, supported by Attlee as his Deputy Prime Minister, went on to lead a coalition of all the political parties, represented in the House of Commons. Any other Leader of the Labour Party, except seemingly Corbyn, may cite the history of the darkest days of 1940 to show just how patriotic the Labour Party is when it really matters. One in the eye, surely, for Tories like Cameron?  Tories, who have much more in common with a Halifax than a Churchill, but not one in the eye for many a Conservative voter who would, I am sure, recognise the contribution that Labour made, alongside their chosen party, in defeating Nazism.  There is no Left or Right in a foxhole.

On 2 September 1939, Neville Chamberlain spoke in a Commons debate and said, in effect, that he was not declaring war on Germany immediately for having invaded Poland. This non declaration greatly angered Leo Amery, a Conservative Member of Parliament present in the House at that moment, and was felt by many present to be out of touch with the temper of the British people. As Labour Party Leader Clement Attlee was absent, Arthur Greenwood stood up in his place and announced that he was speaking for Labour. Amery called out to him across the floor, “Speak for England!” —which carried the undeniable implication that Chamberlain was not. England then meant the United Kingdom.

Corbyn now has the chance to speak for the UK (and not just Islington Man and Woman), to craft a compromise that would put him at the head of the Labour Party and allow him to create a (temporary) coalition within the House of Commons to defeat David Cameron’s plan to extend the Royal Air Force’s strikes from Iraq into Syria. He must, however, do more than merely oppose the Government. He must stop adopting the persona of a rather irritated headmaster of a third rate prep school, who, a few months off retirement, is wearily having to correct, once more, the homework of the school dunce. He might start by arguing that extending the RAF’s operations into Syria would be a diminution of force, a weakening of its efforts in Iraq, and that its schwerpunkt, its main effort, should remain Iraq and Iraq alone.

Corbyn must also accept that he is not only the Leader of the Labour Party, but the Leader of the Opposition, a role which requires him to make alliances across party lines, if he is to be effective. He must articulate an alternative course of action around which his party may unite and which will attract the support of the other opposition parties and those members of the Conservative Party, who are doubtful of the arguments presented to date by David Cameron. Corbyn must accept the fact that until now he has managed to do what Miliband never did, make Cameron look statesmanlike!

If Corbyn needs any advice about how to build a consensus on a single issue then he need look no further than Labour’s leadership in the House of Lords, but of course the party there is headed by a woman and Jeremy shares David’s disease, when it comes to women. If he needs advice about what might constitute an effective considered amendment to that being put down by Cameron then he should consult with, not lecture, his colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Labour Party. He should speak with the leaders of the other opposition parties, including Nicola Sturgeon; experienced statesmen like Lord Ashdown; foreign affairs and defence experts and last, but not least, representatives of the victims of ISIS.

Corbyn must not think, for one moment, that his 50:50, Phone a Friend and/or Ask the Audience approach is anything, but an abrogation of his responsibilities as the leader of the Labour Party, his own 21st Century take on Lansbury’s “hawking” his “conscience round from body to body asking to be told what to do with it.”

Corbyn needs to understand and seek to address the genuine concerns and positions being taken up by MPs, like Chuka Umunna. Umunna has said he would vote on his conscience whatever the leadership decides and is minded to vote in favour of the government’s plans:

“My own personal view is that where are our national security is threatened it would be wrong simply to leave it to others to deal with it. We can’t ignore the barbarity of this death cult, who throw gay people off buildings, systematically rape women, [and] carry out mass executions. Now, do I think that military action – and by the way I am minded to support military intervention, but we have yet to see the wording of the motion – is going to resolve this conflict? Of course not. Do I think it is the only solution? Of course not. But what I do think it can do in the interim is … start to dismantle what Isil are doing.”

Corbyn may be paralysed by Iraq, but others genuinely fear that inaction may have worse consequences than action. No one, I am sure, wants to see any reruns of what happened in, for example, Rwanda. Yes, the deaths there were on a massive scale and one hopes unrepeatable, but then how often before has the human race said that? Moreover, one preventable death is one too many and to misquote Harold Wilson, to the murdered man or woman, murder is 100%.

Corbyn runs the risk of not just portraying the Labour Party, under his leadership, as unpatriotic, but as a national socialist party. A party for whom troubling issues in faraway countries, of which we know little and care less, are best left to media columnists, those with views of disturbing certainty, and the echo chambers of the Internet. Such an isolationist policy is similar to that advocated by Farage. The Labour Party of Bevin was, as is today’s, an internationalist socialist party. Bevin spoke for the many not the few and, especially the working classes when he said, “I’m not going to have my people treated like this!” The people of whom he was speaking at that moment? They were the Jews and trades unionists being persecuted by the Nazis.

Corbyn’s indulgence of the (self appointed) fascists of Momentum (aka New, New Labour’s Sturmabteilung or Thought Police) and their bully boy tactics provides unwanted echoes of the 1930s and is a sure fire recipe for splitting the support that brought him to power. Momentum’s bend your conscience to our way of thinking or face deselection approach is not endearing itself to many who voted for Corbyn as Leader of the Labour Party. People, who I am convinced, believe in freedom of conscience, even for elected politicians.

Will Momentum, the militant wing of the Stop the War Coalition, soon don (ethically sourced) oatmeal coloured hair shirts in order to police Labour Party meetings? Many of them are not Labour Party members and would fall foul of its rules, if they tried to join the party today, but will that obstacle be removed in the coming months as dissatisfaction with Corbyn’s leadership increases and he feels ever more besieged?

Corbyn’s “sudden consultation with party members” is one “for which there is no constitutional basis in the party, and anyway is so haphazardly organised that it cannot be a reliable test of party opinion,” and it “also looks like an effort to ally the leader with the party rank and file against MPs.” In fact, Corbyn’s poll was “statistical junk”.  Yet another example of Corbyn adopting an exclusive, not an inclusive approach which is unlikely to be sustainable in the medium to long term.

Corbyn won the leadership of the Labour Party not a General Election in September 2015. He was elected leader of the Labour Party with 251,485 votes out of the 422,664 cast. The turnout was 76.3% and the total number of eligible voters was 554,272. The party’s national poll ratings are currently around 27%. They are heading towards parity with the polling figures for the Scottish Labour Party, currently at 25%. The Labour Party received 9,347,304 votes on May 7th 2015. Jeremy Corbyn’s 251,485 equates to 2.7% of the voters represented by the Labour Party as a whole.

“A mooted emergency meeting of the national executive, asserting that the terms of the Labour conference motion on Syria have not been met, would also portray him as the party democrat fighting his out of touch MPs.” A viewpoint that may be undermined when people wise up to what Corbyn means when he talks about indicative online polling. Such polls will not result in binding resolutions and may well be ignored, if they produce results which do not accord with the views held by the person who put the poll in the field.

Corbyn is considered to be doing badly or very badly by 13% of those who voted for him as leader and 1% are unsure about him. A 14% drop in support in about 3 months that equates to a decline in support from 59.5% to 51.2%. Does Corbyn really want to be remembered as the Leader of the Labour Party, who ruled, not led the party, with the help of Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Diane Abbot and the support of intimidatory tactics deployed by Momentum? One might think that Momentum, going on current form, see themselves as the descendants of Mosley’s boot boys.

Chamberlain’s Government fell at the end of the Norway Debate in May 1940. Amery spoke in that debate, “This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation. You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”

Corbyn may face that injunction, possibly from the trades unions, if he does not stop following a Bushite line. Remember if you are not with us then you must be against us? The Labour Party is a broad church and rarely has less than three strands of opinion on any issue. And you may not call yourself a socialist, if unable to start a disagreement about ideology, with yourself, in an empty room!

Oh, and, if you are unfamiliar with the biography of Ernie Bevin, he was a British statesman, trades union leader, and Labour politician. He co-founded and served as General Secretary of the powerful Transport and General Workers’ Union from 1922 to 1940 and as Minister of Labour in the war-time coalition government. He succeeded in maximising the British labour supply, for both the armed services and domestic industrial production, with a minimum of strikes and disruption.

Bevin’s most important role came as Foreign Secretary in the post-war Labour Government, 1945 to 1951. He gained American financial support, strongly opposed Communism, and aided in the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Bevin’s tenure also saw the end of the Mandate of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel. Bevin was arguably the greatest British Foreign Secretary of the 20th Century. He was, to quote his own words, “A turn up in a million” and he never forgot “it is somebody and somebody’s kindred that are being persecuted and punished and tortured, and they are defenceless. That is a fact.”

Advertisements

.@EmilyThornberry said #Labour under #Corbyn wouldn’t be able to afford to end benefits freeze & cap

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes, should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

#Corbyn tell #GrenfellTower guy he hugged #Labour in Government to keep benefits freeze & cap? #Grenfell

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes, should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

“The commitment I make is that I do understand the perverse effects of the (benefits) cap.” #Corbyn 2017

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes, should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

Vote #Labour! Vote #Corbyn! Give the offspring of a #ReesMogg free university tuition, tax free!

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes, should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

#Labour under #Corbyn now vying with #Conservative Party under #May for title of The UK Nasty Party …

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes. should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

For Jeremy #Corbyn, #Labour, is an honourable man, a champion of the poor …

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes. should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.