Childcare Costs

From the BBC

Anand Shukla, chief executive at the Family and Childcare Trust, said: "When even part-time childcare costs outstrip the average mortgage for a family home - and many parents have to spend more than a quarter of their income on childcare - it's clear that our childcare system isn't fit for purpose.(1)

"We need a... system that helps parents who want to work and contribute to the economy and gives children the best start in life."(2)

And he called for all political parties to commit to a long-term strategy that delivers for parents, providers, and children.(3)

The report called for better use of school premises and children's centres to provide childcare, and for the government's contribution to costs to increase.(4)

1. Well, considering that Anand Shukla doesn't seem to support increasing ratios and seem to be opposed to deregulation, the system is as good as it's going to be. The ratio is currently 1:4. Even if you're paying someone minimum wage to look after kids, there's still the thing of running the business, providing facilities following all the bureaucracy etc. So, let's say double minimum wage. In which case, 1/4 of the average salary doesn't sound too far wrong.

2. Define "economy". For a lot of women, it makes more economic sense to be a housewife, and once the kids go to school, to get a part-time job. Houses have to be cleaned, meals cooked etc. That's all productive work.

3. As the Family and Childcare Trust don't want any sort of reduction in ratios or deregulation, I presume they simply mean subsidy.

4. Why should government contribute more? If it's more economical for women to stay at home and raise the kids in early years, what's wrong with that? Sure, for some women the economic value of going to work outstrips the value of being at home, but for a lot of them, it doesn't. And a lot of couples value spending time in early years with the kids rather highly (I know a programmer who quit for 5 years and is now trying to get back in).

Fun Online Polls: Idiot lobbyists campaigning against the wrong thing

A spokeswoman for the pubco lobbying body was on Radio 4 this morning, ostensibly complaining about moves to introduce a "statutory code of practice" for the way that pubco's treat their tied landlords (who are in fact tenants), a deeply unhappy relationship at best.

She waffled on a bit about "self-regulation" and it being a free world, nobody is forced to become a tied landlord, it's cheaper paying rent than borrowing money to buy your own pub etc, fair enough, I have no strong opinion one way or another.

But she highlighted what a bunch of idiots they are when right at the end she said it wasn't pubco's killing off pubs, it was the government doing it with Beer Duty, which according to her "has increased 42%" but without saying since when, so that's a meaningless statement.

Apart from the fact that it was the smoking ban, something supported by a majority of the population, which is killing off pubs, can you spot her deliberate error/omission?

See if you can guess, using the widget in the sidebar.

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

MHO, the EU was originally a good idea (free movement of people and goods etc) especially when membership was restricted to a dozen or so similarly wealthy west European countries, but over the past twenty years it has changed into a massive horrible bureaucracy which does nothing other than rubber stamp regulations and subsidies on behalf of large businesses and other rent-seekers which act as barriers to entry or growth for small and medium sized businesses but over which larger businesses can easily vault (i.e. corporatism, which is a hybrid of the worst elements of Communism and of capitalism).

So it's interesting to compare and contrast what the various UK business lobbying groups say about the UK and the EU, although they all go along with the general politically correct message that overall it is better for the UK to stay in the EU subject to renegotiation blah blah blah (and none of them seems to have a clear single overall policy).

(And there's a heck of a lot of hairshirt bansturbation emanating from the EU, separate topic.)

1. The lobby group for very large businesses, the Confederation of British Industry is unashamedly pro-EU (and pro-subsidy etc), the only thing they moan about is the Working Time Directive:

The CBI is calling for the debate on Europe to focus on credible options for the UK's future relationship with the EU, warning that half-way house models such as Norway and Switzerland are not the answer.

Ahead of a key debate in the House of Commons on the timing of a potential EU referendum, the CBI is today (Friday) publishing new analysis of Norway's and Switzerland's relationships with the EU and rejects the notion that a similar form of associate membership would work for the UK.

2. The British Chambers of Commerce include more medium sized businesses. They tend to be apolitical but they are a tad more sceptical:

The manufacturing sector is still facing many challenges, but we know from our survey that many firms are enthusiastic, confident, and looking to expand and drive the recovery, as long as there is a supportive environment that fosters enterprise.

The trade figures continue to demonstrate the importance of diversifying our exports outside the EU. While progress is being made, the pace of rebalancing towards net exports is still inadequate.

There is huge untapped potential among British exporters, and the government must do more to help those firms enter new export markets. This will help them to compete on a level-playing field in areas such as trade finance, insurance, and promotion.

3. The Institute of Directors represents more small businesses (and tends to be traditional Conservativism) and so are more sceptical still:

Among the IoD membership there will be a broad range of views on EU membership, reflecting the country at large. For some, the free movement of goods and people within a single market is a triumph of our time. For others, the regulatory and financial burdens of membership raise questions about how well the system works - and for whom it is working.

There will also be many people who view the issue as a simple question of sovereignty. The financial crisis, combined with some very real concerns about the politics of Europe, has presented this country with an opportunity to examine the foundations of our EU membership…

79 per cent of IoD members have some form of business link with the EU, and 60 per cent agreed with the statement that "continued access to the Single Market is important to my organisation". However, there is a broad appetite for deep reform. Members cite home affairs, employment law and corporate governance as areas where powers should be repatriated.

4. The Federation of Small Businesses is unsurprisingly the most negative of all (they would like to turn the regulations on their heads so that they place a larger burden on large businesses while exempting small businesses entirely):

Small businesses are often hampered by EU legislation. The flow of regulation on employment, environmental issues, as well as health and safety can discourage businesses from expanding. It can even contribute to their closure.

Our Action not Words campaign highlighted the administrative burdens facing small businesses. We have long called for Europe to 'Think Small First' and consider exemptions, special measures and lighter regimes for micro businesses.

5. I'm not sure how big or small the member firms of the Engineering Employer's Federation are (probably a fair mixture of both) but they are always reliably and surprisingly left wing (some of the stuff they come out with makes them sound like a trade union):

As we once again debate the UK's future within the European Union, EEF has been consulting with manufacturers – across all sectors, sizes and regions across the UK – on their views. And what we have concluded is that manufacturing support for continued membership remains strong.

While there is much that could be improved, the benefits that the EU offers in terms of access to markets, efforts to level the playing field, free movement of people, access to partners and funding for greater levels of innovation are all important.

"Ban school dinners so children eat healthy packed lunches, headteachers urged"

From The Daily Mail:

School dinners are helping to fuel a rise in childhood obesity, Government advisers will warn today as they set out plans to revive packed lunches.

The chief executives of Kingsmill owner Allied Bakeries and Hovis owner Premier Foods, Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent, insist sandwiches are healthier and can provide more variety than the typical school dinner prepared by corporate outsourcing giants, usually including chips, doughy pizza or plain rice.

Their packed lunch plan, to be launched with education secretary Michael Gove, will say it is up to parents to improve quality and take-up of packed lunches.

Sandwich-making lessons at school are also to become compulsory for children ages seven to 14 from September as the Government aims to improve their understanding of spreads and fillings. Pupils will be expected to be able to make up to 20 different types of sandwich before taking their GCSE exams and encouraged to take the new NVQ in reparing toasters and sandwich makers.

The bakery chiefs have spent a year visiting more than 60 schools in the UK gathering evidence, and say packed lunches have improved greatly since celebrity sandwich maker Jamie Oliver began his crusade against Turkey Twizzlers in 2005.

"We appreciate it is suddenly 'the fashionable thing to do' but please stop

referring yourselves to us for investigation by us on the grounds that you haven't done anything wrong but are about to appear in a TV programme which will show you doing nothing wrong" the authorities and officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons urge MPs and Peers. 

In a separate move various members of the Coalition Government promised tonight that there would be legislation on the statute book covering new arrangements for "not doing wrong" before the next election unless of course it was shelved again once the present fad for self-referral for having done nothing wrong faded, or some other matter displaced it "headline-wise".

[They would say that, wouldn't they?] Trade Associations Of The Week

1. From the BBC:

Councils spent £90m repairing 1.7 million potholes across England and Wales last year, a survey suggests. But it will still take more than a decade to clear the backlog, says the Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) report...

However, the AIA report suggested two-thirds of local authorities had been unable to make good damage caused by the cold weather of 2010-11, despite the emergency funding and a milder winter this year. It said the number of complaints to local authorities from the public about the condition of roads increased by 10% last year.

AIA chairman Alan Mackenzie said: "Severe winter weather would not, in itself, produce a plague of potholes on well-maintained roads. "These disastrous figures result from decades of underfunding and enforced short-term planning."

2. From City AM


ENDING the zombie business crisis plaguing the economy would be a cheap and easy way to boost growth, the UK’s top turnaround group argued last night, urging George Osborne to push banks to take the plunge on bad debts and write off the thousands of firms that have no hope of recovery...

The Institute for Turnaround (IfT) says big banks are best placed to judge which firms have a future and should embark on an intensive review of at-risk companies, pulling loans from those that cannot recover and offering extra support to those who can...

"The [taxpayer-funded] taskforce could begin by adjudicating in situations where struggling firms have been in business support with their banks for over two years – that amounts to hundreds of firms in the state-backed banks alone," she told City A.M. "Those without a future could be humanely run down; those that are viable in the long term could be supported and turned around. This is about supporting firms so they can attract investment, increase pay, create sustainable jobs – currently we are wasting potential, and it is holding back the UK’s productivity."

Bonus right at the end of the article:

... RBS rejected the idea it should review struggling businesses rapidly. "If someone’s running a firm and they’re paying their bills, paying their interest charges, and employing people then we can’t just run in and say we don’t think you’re very good," said corporate banking boss Chris Sullivan.

3. And the post would not be complete without a "We own land, give us money!", would it? From Retail Week:

Landlords have slammed the "growing underhand practice" of insolvency practices such as pre-pack administrations that they say siphons "tens of millions of pounds out of pensioners’ savings into the pockets of private investors profiting from retail failure...

The BPF has criticised pre-pack administrations, where the terms of the sale are "kept deliberately vague". It said landlords are pressurised to give concessions on existing leases of profitable stores "often under threat that if concessions are not given then that landlord’s property will not feature in the sale".

"The result on profitable stores is simply to transfer profits from pensioners’ savings in property to the new buyers of the business, often private investors," the BPF said. "Another consequence is that it puts rival successful retailers at a disadvantage. This reinforces failure, rather than promoting more successful retailers," the BPF added.

Bonus points for using "thrifty pensioners" as a human shield there, you greedy bastard. Twice. If you're worried about "rival successful retailers" being at a disadvantage, well just drop their rents a bit, FFS.

That was then, this is now.

BBC July 2010:

A leading nutritionist says GPs should send obese patients to weight-loss schemes rather than offer NHS help because they will see better results.

Dr Susan Jebb of the Medical Research Council* found in a study that people in a WeightWatchers programme lost twice as much weight as those with GP care. WeightWatchers part-funded the study, but Dr Jebb stressed similar schemes would be as effective. The National Obesity Forum said buying in services could benefit NHS patients...

Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum said: "GPs are generalists by definition whereas WeightWatchers are the 'consultants' in their field. It's therefore not surprising that the latter achieve the better results. Referral to any organisation with a proven weight-loss system which can be replicated anywhere has to be the best option for the patient, the GP and the NHS.

Spotted by Bob E in The Daily Mail January 2013:

The NHS has spent £4million on sending fat people to Weight Watchers over the past five years. GPs now routinely refer patients to the classes, which cost 'private' visitors around £45 for three months.

Recent studies have found the courses to be highly effective at helping people lose weight. GPs have been able to send patients to them on the NHS since 2007, after they were approved by the rationing watchdog NICE. They are offered by two-thirds of Primary Care Trusts...

However, concerns have been raised that many pro-Weight Watchers studies are funded by the company itself, and may therefore be biased. Claire Friedemann, of the centre of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford, told Dispatches: "The danger with companies funding their own research is that they may only publish results which are positive for them."

After analysing ten studies that suggested Weight Watchers was effective, she found that eight had been paid for by the firm itself. Her analysis also showed that while many Weight Watchers patients lost weight within the first three months, some had put it back on again after five years.

* From the MRC website:

Alignment with industry in research, training and translational investments is at the heart of the MRC's strategy and delivery plan - we are committed to developing and sustaining close and productive partnerships with industry in the UK. All our research boards and funding panels benefit from industry representation to ensure strong input from the private sector.

At present, we fund collaborative research with over 80 companies, ranging from large pharmaceutical companies to biosciences and healthcare companies. Notable successes include the The Division of Signal Transduction Therapy (DSTT) (also called the Dundee Kinase Consortium) which has attracted £10.8 million in joint funding from five of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies and the Centre for Drug Safety Science which currently collaborates with six different industrial partners on non-competitive projects with the aim to ultimately produce safer drugs for patients.

Petulant Outbursts Of The Week

Both emailed in by Bob E.

1. From The Independent:

It sounds too good to be true, coming at the end of the season of excess, but after one of the largest reviews of research ever conducted, doctors say that carrying a few extra pounds may actually reduce the risk of premature death...

Tam Fry, spokesman for the UK National Obesity Forum*, said: "Katherine Flegal is an extremely good researcher and I would respect her. But I am flabbergasted. The sum total of medical expert opinion cannot have got it so wrong. The consequences of people taking this research and deciding 'let's eat and be merry' will be catastrophic.

* The NOF is not a fakecharity, it is a Big Pharma lobbying front. According to Bob E, "This rubbishing is not, as you might think, based on Tam's deep knowledge of all things scientific and biological, because that is just about a round "zero" seeing as Tam gravitated towards the NOF after a 25 year career in TV production."

2. From The Telegraph:

Government alcohol guidelines that were "plucked out of the air" wrongly suggest that we can drink almost daily with no ill-effects, say doctors...

Dr Nick Sheron, a liver specialist at Southampton University, said: "The problem I have with the Government advice is that is normalises the fact that it’s OK to have a drink on a daily basis, when that’s really not the case."

Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer for England, is currently reviewing the evidence on the risks of drinking, said a Department of Health spokesman. She said: "The health risks from alcohol rise as you drink more and there is some evidence that small amounts of alcohol can reduce some health risks. To look at whether the system is still helpful to people, the Chief Medical Officer is set to review the alcohol consumption guidelines."

We own land! Give us money!

From City AM:

HOUSEBUILDERS and industry executives welcomed government plans yesterday to provide an extra £225m funding to help unblock a number of stalled schemes to deliver 48,600 new homes.

Speaking at the National House-Building Council annual lunch deputy prime minister Nick Clegg warned that the UK has “been under-building for decades” with more than 100,000 homes needing to be built each year. He pledged to provide £225m to underwrite major housing projects that had “hit a wall”. The projects will be modelled on “garden cities” of the early 20th century such as Letchworth and Milton Keynes, which were built after the second world war.

The Confederation of Business Industry said the move should “inject confidence” into the sector by offering some respite to housebuilders struggling to get funding. But the lobby group added: “House builders need the government to deliver on its promises by urgently clarifying how this new funding will work alongside the £10bn of government guarantees, and by championing NewBuy to boost demand.”

Clegg also announced that the European Investment Bank will be injecting £400m into the UK affordable housing sector. That money will be allocated by next March and will help deliver new energy efficient affordable homes – as well as improving the energy efficiency of existing homes too, he said.

Splendid bit of lobbying by the financial services sector

Spotted by Bob E in The Guardian. Putting aside the fact that Nest is a huge great scam anyway...

The National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) was set up following Labour's 2008 Pensions Act to provide pensions for lower paid workers in permanent or temporary employment. Two-thirds of the UK's private sector employees do not have a workplace pension.

It was hoped companies could automatically enrol their staff into Nest unless their employer chose to make alternative approved arrangements. This in turn would provide employees with a portable, single pot of savings they could take from one job to the next. But the government withdrew proposals to introduce automatic enrolment. Even though Labour received clearance from Europe, the insurance industry claimed this would fall foul of EU competition rules.

The industry also successfully lobbied to prevent savers transferring in cash they may have built up elsewhere, allowing the pension industry to retain tens of thousands of small pots from savers and reducing the size of Nest. The restriction is not applicable to other pension providers.

Bowing further to industry pressure, the government imposed a £4,400 annual cap on the combined contributions employers and employees can make to the scheme meaning employers with staff earning above £55,000 will be forced to use additional schemes. That earnings level could be lower if an employer chooses to make more generous contributions than the statutory minimum. It makes scheme more bureaucratic for businesses. Again, other schemes do not face this restriction...

A senior Whitehall source involved in framing the legislation suggested the insurance industry "wanted to stop Nest taking in accounts from existing providers which effectively denied Nest scale", while three insurance executives confirmed the industry had engaged in a concerted lobbying offensive on this issue.

Something else that hacks me off about this whole "encouraging people to save" meme assumes that people have to choose some tax-favoured scheme and then regularly pay money into it, as if this solves all our problems. Wrong. All "saving" means is spending less than you earn in the good times so that you can spend more than you earn in the bad times (thus maximising the value of your lifetime consumption; the marginal benefit of having £1 extra to spend when you are poor is far greater than the marginal loss of spending £1 less when you are rich).

What people should do with their spare cash in the meantime is a separate issue - paying off your mortgage is the safest bet, above and beyond that, who knows? Which is exactly what the financial services sector don't want - they want people to have big mortgages which take decades to pay off and at the same time to entrust them with their "savings", i.e. they want individuals to finance their own mortgages, enabling the financial services sector to make profits on both sides of the equation.

I'll have two small Cokes and two small popcorns please...

... actually, sod it, make it four of each, please:

Supersize fizzy drinks should be banned from cinemas, restaurants and sports grounds in London to curb obesity, health experts say. Anti-obesity campaigner Tam Fry today called on Mayor Boris Johnson to copy New York, which has imposed a 16oz limit on the sale of sugary drinks...

Mr Fry, from the National Obesity Forum,(1) said the move by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg was the way forward to tackle the capital’s obesity epidemic. In an interview with the Standard, he said: “London should take a leaf out of New York’s book. Everything Michael Bloomberg does is backed up with perfectly good science.(2) If England were to follow more what America was doing then we would be in a much better situation.”

Bucket-sized portions of popcorn are also to blame for fuelling the country’s obesity epidemic and should be banned, according to Mr Fry. He said: “People go to cinemas, buy popcorn and just shovel it in, then they go home and flop on the couch.”(3)

1) The section of their website headed Our Partners is most illuminating. The NOF is not a fakecharity in the traditional sense, it is a food-industry lobbying front.

2) O rly?

3) How the f- does he know what people do after they've left the cinema and why is it any of his f-ing business? Is this the sort of scientifically established finding upon which Bloomberg bases his decisions?

Let's round of the evening with a nice little fakecharity

Longrider asks: "what’s the betting that the Children’s Food Trust is another interfering fake charity?"

From the website of The School Food Trust:

The Children’s Food Trust is a new community interest company working with the School Food Trust, the registered charity and specialist advisor to Government on school meals, children’s food and related skills. Both organisations share the vision that all children are able to have the balanced diet, cooking skills and food education that will help them reach their full potential...

Creating the Children’s Food Trust is the next step for our successful national charity, the School Food Trust. Established in 2005, the School Food Trust began work as a non-departmental public body for the then Department of Education and Skills (replaced by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and subsequently by the current Department for Education (DfE).

So the School Food Trust is a straight forward quango, but we have to be a bit careful about pre-judging the Children's Food Trust. Under New Labour most of these organisations were indeed government-funded fakecharities, but under the Tories, there has been a resurgence in industry lobbying bodies masquerading as fakecharities. At a guess, I would say that the Children's Food Trust is actually an industry lobbying body which has done a reverse takeover of a quango, but we'll see.

Yes, but everybody in my family is quite slim...

From the BBC:

Christmas may be a time of indulging for many, but health experts believe it is the perfect time to tell a loved one they are overweight. The National Obesity Forum and International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk said it was important to be upfront because of the health risks...

And no, the NOF is not a traditional fakecharity, it is primarily a lobbying front for Big Pharma. And why people would take advice from pieces of furniture is beyond me, no matter how fancy the name for it.

I note that the article does not end with a Department of Health spokesman promptly agreeing that something must be done, as is so often the case.

More FakeCharity Fun

From The Daily Mail:

Prince Charles has used charities he set up to lobby Ministers to get them to change their policies, it was revealed today...

Documents reveal the Prince's charity Business in the Community asked Vince Cable to reverse his decision to get rid of the Northwest Regional Development Agency. The quango has funded Business in the Community's work with disadvantaged secondary schools.

Grant Shapps, the Local Government Minister, received a letter from the Prince's Regeneration Trust calling for a cut in VAT on restoring historic buildings... Just three months later the department awarded the group an £800,000 grant. They deny that the two were linked.

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

From City AM:

Borrowing was £1.5bn higher in April and May than at the same point last year, knocking the coalition’s plan to reduce the deficit by around £20bn. Spending in the first two months of this financial year was 4.1 per cent higher than the same time in 2010.(1)

Despite the over-spend, Labour last night blamed the UK’s anaemic growth on Osborne’s planned cuts. The deficit reduction "goes too far and too fast", a party spokesperson said,(2) arguing for a reversal of the VAT hike.(3)

The Federation of Small Businesses this week called on the government to temporarily slash VAT for the construction and tourism sectors, in a bid to kick start the economy.(4)

Yet Osborne’s policy of raising VAT while scheduling reductions in business tax was supported by Berenberg Bank economist Holger Schmieding(5): "Cutting business taxes is the strongest signal to send to global firms (6), while other supply side reforms will help boost the economy in the medium-term."

1) But both the big parties are doing plenty of Indian Bicycle Marketing. The Tories are allowing the deficit to increase while claiming that they are reducing it...

2) ... a delusion which Labour are keen to foster.

3) In which, unusually, Labour would be absolutely correct*.

4) As backed up by the FSB, who actually represent small businesses on the ground in the real economy - these people have to fill in their own tax returns and write cheques from their own bank accounts, and know full well that VAT is a tax on business and that they pay five times as much in VAT as they do in corporation tax or income tax on their profits.

5) Banks love the idea of VAT being increased and corporation tax reduced because they are largely exempt, for every extra £1 input VAT they suffer, they save £10 in corporation tax.

6) Banks are global, they can redirect transactions to whichever jurisdiction they choose; a local building firm or pub landlord can't just up sticks and relocate to a country where VAT on construction or catering is lower.

* Reducing VAT to 15% and curtailing exemptions for Business Rates were about the only two really good things they ever did. Along with exempting foreign dividends from UK corporation tax and the Substantial Shareholdings Exemption.

FakeCharities under the Lib-Cons

As I said a while back, "... under the Lib-Cons fakeprivatecompanies and industry-lobby-groups-masquerading-as-charities ('ILGMACs') will take the place of the much loved fakecharities in setting the agenda (i.e. dictating 'regulation and legislation') and/or directing how taxpayers' money is to be spent."

Adam Collyer describes the machinations of a specific ILGMAC here. Worth reading in full.

Official: London & South East are overly reliant on public sector spending

One of the myths put about by the Home-Owner-Ists in London & the South East is that public sector spending cuts (to the extent there actually will be any) will reduce their house prices less than in 'the regions' because 'the regions' are overly reliant on public sector spending, i.e. that the proportion of public sector workers is lower in London & the South East.

Firstly, the ratio for London is the same as anywhere else: around one-in-four people are employed by the government or local councils (it might well be lower in the rest of the South East, of course).

Secondly, as today's Evening Standard explains:

Public sector wages in the capital are far higher on average than other parts of the country, just over £34,000 compared to slightly less than £26,000. Individuals who get more generous pay rises and are on the highest salaries are set to be the biggest losers from the reforms.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow warned: "The Hutton pension plans will hit public sector workers in London particularly hard because wages tend to be higher."

Jonathan Baume, general secretary of the FDA*, which represents senior public sector workers, added: "Clearly there is a big impact on London because of the concentration of public services."

So even if the ratio of public sector-to-private sector is slightly lower, average salaries are considerably higher (all the tens of thousands of Whitehall mandarins earning seven figure salaries), and the total amount spent is probably as much as anywhere else.

So there.

* Rather hilariously, if you follow the hyperlink in the article to the FDA, it cross references you to articles about the US Food & Drug Administration, and not the rather pretentiously named civil servants' lobbying group the First Division Association (who by rights ought to be called Premiership Association by now).

Emma Harrison, 'Family Champion'

It appears that the Lib-Cons are following Nulab tradition and appointing all sorts of meddlers and quangista to try and create The Master Race. This story was on Radio 4 this morning (brief write up here) but apart from that I can't find anything online.

Basically, Emma Harrison founder of fakeprivatecompany Action4Employment, now possibly known as A4E, yes, the ones who bought David Blunkett's seal of approval, has been given the job of being 'Family Champion' who is going to turn 'troubled families' into 'working families'. She claims to be doing it unpaid, but the plan is that she will have tens of thousands of people working for her.

Yup, that's right, people like Emma Harrison or Will Hutton just glide smoothly from being Labour luvvies to being Lib-Con luvvies. The whole thing makes me feel sick.

UPDATE: I refer my readers to the single issue 'blog Watching A4E for more A4E-related tomfoolery.

Prince Among Men

Fun Online Polls: Commuting & Eyebrows

There was a very good turnout in last week's Fun Online Poll (133 took part, multiple choice, thanks to all who took part), results as follows:

Which is the least stressful way for you to get to your current place of work?

Driving by car - 56 votes
Walking or cycling - 25 votes
Taking the train - 16 votes
Taking the 'bus - 6 votes
Other, please specify - 4 votes ('jogging' and 'motorbike')
I work from home, am retired or currently unemployed - 37 votes

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Greener Journeys! The twattish thing is that I might just as well have asked "How do you get to work?" and the answers would have been much the same; so really I could have asked "Do you choose to the least stressful mode of transport to get to work?", a question which is barely worth asking...
--------------------------------------------
Fiona Bruce was back on telly again yesterday (I've not noticed her for a while) and has inspired this week's Fun Online Poll: "Who has the sharpest eyebrows?"

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.