UNISON, the public sector trade union, recently launched an online video which claimed that cutting public spending meant leaving people without 999 operators, bin men or nurses. In response the Taxpayers’ Alliance produced an edited version of their film which demonstrates the wide range of absurd non-jobs throughout the public sector which could be abolished without any impact at all on front line services.  A good example of how it is hotting up in the iCampaign…

Transport Minister Sadiq Khan is in hot water this afternoon after it has been revealed that he lied to the press and to the Parliamentary authorities. He is paying back £2,500. Having had over a grands worth of greeting card receipts rightly rejected from his Communications Allowance claims, Khan then went back to the printers and had them create a new receipt, for the same amount, but without the birthday cards itemised on them. This fraudulent receipt was then accepted by the Fees Office.

Blatant and deliberate deception by the “Right Honourable” Minister.

Khan has form in this area, he had to pay back another £1,000 in  2007 for a Communications Allowance funded newsletter plastered in Labour roses. In November 2007 he told The Telegraph “I personally pay for the cost of sending out birthday cards to some of my constituents who turn 18.” A blatant “mistruth” given he made two claims, one for Diwali and Eid cards in December 2005 and one for 18^th birthday cards in January 2006. A cocktail of lies, deception and dodgy paperwork. Ministers have resigned for less.

Click here to view John Lyon’s full response to the complaint.

This week Emily was in Manchester to grab the first interview with freed pub landlord Nick Hogan, we get immediate comment from campaigners who made the trial of three MPs a reality, and also we investigate some Big Issues. Finally there is a  poingnant musical mash up of Gordon Brown and Johnny Cash.

If you subscribed to the Guidogram you would have seen this on Friday.

Update :

March 15 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

Update : II : Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London, said under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario the UK will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other AAA rated country: “We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing … This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.” Moodys predicts the UK will spend 7% of tax revenue servicing debt this year and between 9% and 12% in 2013. Financing costs above 10% automatically put countries outside of the AAA ratings category.

Update : III : For a completely different take, see the BBC -  UK Credit Rating Viewed As Safe

Gordon was showing his true Prime Mentalist colours when he appeared on Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this morning. Firstly he claimed “I feel more comfortable with women, I have got to tell you”. If that was really true, then why the need for the “I have got to tell you.” Which aide told him “you’ve got to tell them that”?

Secondly and terrifyingly he said that even if he loses the election “I’ll keep going because I want a majority, I’ll keep going.”  It seems he doesn’t quite understand how elections work. It’s pure arrogance to think the country would tolerate him after rejecting  him at the ballot box and it’s almost as naive as thinking his party won’t be calling for his head within minutes of the polls closing. The delusion is really setting in.

It seems he has form in the whole not-quite-getting-how-elections-work area.

Video via Tory Landlord

UPDATE: At 11.19 Guido stated the thought of Gordon clinging on was terrifying. At 11.48 a CCHQ press officer said the prospect of Brown clinging on was “truly terrifying”. Another happy reader.

One time girlfriend of Euan Blair, and now Sion Simon’s squeeze, Luciana Berger has been parachuted in as the Labour candidate for Liverpool Wavertree. Given the posh London image is being played down for the election, it was a tad embarrassing when the fact Luciana has swapped cars with her brother for the duration of campaign was revealed by the Mail on Sunday.

Her little black Yaris with 5k personalised numberplate clearly wasn’t cutting the mustard in down-town Liverpool

The Sunday Times has been digging into Labour donor Willie Haughey’s Links to Cocaine City Councillor, which seem unhealthy.  Scottish Labour’s biggest donor does a heck of a lot of profitable business with Labour controlled Glasgow City Council.  It smells.

Co-conspirators have been emailing background and leads on this story which have been difficult for Guido to follow-up, which is a shame because the Scottish press seems timid.  The Scottish press skirted delicately round the issue of Purcell’s cocaine addiction.  Strathclyde police say no official complaint has been received.  Watch this space.

Telegraph is reporting that Lord Paul has repaid the £38,000 in expenses he claimed for a flat he never slept in. He says it is not an admission of guilt. So why is he repaying it?

The Fabian’s Tim Horton and IPPR’s Howard Reed have jointly authored a paper for Left Foot Forward designed to undermine the case for raising tax thresholds for low income earners.  Clearly they are trying to undermine Clegg’s claim to support a fairer tax system, which by all accounts is playing very well on the doorsteps.

Horton and Reed make a number of charges that need rebutting:

• Three million of the poorest households gain nothing from the change

That is only because they simply just don’t pay tax. No tax cut will ever help that group, only an increase in welfare transfer payments can benefit them. That however would further increase dependency and disincentivise them from coming off welfare support.

• Households in the second richest decile gain, on average, four times the amount of those in the poorest decile.

Once again, this is because the lowest decile don’t pay much if any tax – we are really talking about part-time workers and those on welfare. Nevertheless everybody, including the lowest decile, will be better off whatever their income.

• Only around £1 billion of the £17 billion cost actually goes toward the stated aim of lifting low-income households out of tax, the policy would increase socially damaging inequalities between the bottom and middle.

Here we get to the real reason they object, it cuts taxes for the middle classes. According to their numbers, those on low incomes will only benefit by £5 a week and those on middle incomes will benefit by £20 a week. Low income households also qualify for welfare transfers from middle income earners, from free school meals to welfare credits.  Is it really unfair against a background of progressively higher marginal tax rates on middle income earners?  Middle earners pay disproportionately more tax after all.

Horton and Reed don’t really dispute that the lowest earners will be better off, they just don’t like the distribution of benefits from the policy. They do conclude with a bit of hyperbole: “It could actually harm the welfare of low-income households by increasing inequality and relative poverty.” Nobody is harmed by a “relative increase in inequality”. That is a left-wing myth. If your neighbour wins the lottery you are relatively poorer in comparison but not objectively, similarly those on lower incomes are not made poorer by those on middle incomes paying a little less tax. Nice try, but the moral case for taking those on the minimum wage out of tax is still stronger than the case for taxing them to pay them welfare.