Stats Office Squares Up To Spinners

While it wasn't only the sea bass being grilled in the commons, served with lashings of Brown sauce, the row brewing at Westminster is how that reckless lot at the ONS had the cheek to publish clear, accurate and relevant jobs and immigrant figures, without letting Downing Street spinners get their grubby little paws on the press release. 

Yesterday's ONS release has left ministers "fizzing with anger" about the publication of numbers showing how many UK jobs go to immigrants.

The figures show the number of foreign workers increased by 175,000 to 2.4 million last year while the number of British workers fell by 234,000 to 27 million. Not good news for ministers still smarting from the BJ4BW protest. 

Such a release would have been unthinkable during the Campbell/Blair years and indeed up until very recently. But that was before home secretary Smith's political advisor was slammed by a commons watchdog after ordering the release of misleading knife crime figures. 

Then ministers and Downing Street spinners were blasted for 'corroding public trust'  using 'selective' figures to claim they are winning the war on the streets as ONS officials tried in vain to stop the government's 'reckless' release. 

The ONS is desperate to prove its independence and restore public confidence but juggling with any figures within a tight and highly skewed criteria set by the government has made a complete mockery of any government statistics, which no-one believes anymore, anyway. But well done guys for trying. 

Playing the numbers game has been a low point of the powerful Downing Street spin machine with obsessive control over what, where and when any information is released. 

Now it seems the spinning top had no idea what is coming out of the Office of National Statistics, as it fearlessly goes its own way. 

As usual, Mike Smithson over at politicalbetting puts his finger on the issue: "Isn’t this also a measure of the decline of Labour’s power? Whitehall has a strong sense that the game is up and bodies like the UK Statistics Authority can launch moves without fear."

Read More...

Smith Used Sex To Sway Voters

Plans to punish punters who pay for sex have been exposed as a cheap election gimmick, with critics rounding on home secretary Jacqui Smith's tough stand as just riding on the back of the popularity stakes.

Proposals from the home secretary left the Orange Party feeling distinctly uncomfortable. 

Here was a raft of tough-talking proposals coming out of the blue and receiving widespread publicity. That begged the questions - why now and why those measures in particular? 

Cracking-down on customers who pay for pimp-controlled or illegally trafficked prostitutes smacked of the warped inverted sexism and party politics so beloved of the government. 

A voice of reason and common sense was needed. Preferably female, liberal minded and preferably with a religious tone which could speak from a respected moral high ground.

Those voices have now been heard. But surprisingly they are voices from the political right which have rounded on the home secretary. Voices which one would expect would take a firm hand on prostitution. 

At issue here is yet more laws and control. No government can outlaw prostitutes, never could, never would, but it can try its damnest to outlaw prostitution. 

In a well argued article in the Sunday Times, Minnette Marrin, is clear: 'Slithery Jacqui Smith wants a backdoor ban on prostitution'.

"Anyone with a tittle of sense would see that this is unworkable and unfair ... Once again this government is trying to override common sense, human nature and personal freedom in the interests of a policy not fit for purpose." 

The Adam Smith Institute (ASI), named after Thatcher's favourite economist, takes an equally bold stand and cites Roman catholic priest, George Pitcher, from the Daily Telegraph: 


“Laws made by legislators with an eye to the electorate, rather than care for the oppressed and vulnerable, can make lives considerably worse for those who most need our protection ...  Cosy, self-satisfied, middle-class observers may claim that there is no such beast as a good user of prostitutes. The prostitutes themselves would disagree.” 

As the ASI points out: "When an ordained priest of the Church of England writes that the government’s policy of criminalising paying for sex then it is quite likely that those in power might be making a mistake.'"



Crucially ASI states: "The motivations behind this government’s approach are clearly the perceived popularity of the tough stance."

The ASI also harnesses Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon, writing in the Telegraph on the home secretary and government thinking which “include the radical feminist thesis that all heterosexual sex is exploitation, a Marxist view that all work is exploitation, and a religious evangelism which argues that all non-procreational sex is wrong.”



The Orange Party believes there's a simply effective solution in licensing but that's not one which would find favour with the warped views of government. 

All prostitutes would have to be licensed. In happens already many parts of the US and elsewhere. That licence crucially controls age and is often only given after medical and drugs checks show the all clear. 

As Marrin points out: "If every prostitute had to get an up-to-date licence showing her photograph, birth certificate, nationality, licensed place of work and registration with the police and show it to every punter to prove she was not under duress, many of the worst traffickers and pimps would be forced out of business."

Decriminalisation is shared by Dr Brooks-Gordon: “Ministers should scrap the prostitution laws and start again by following New Zealand's lead in decriminalising the industry, which empowered workers and reduced violence."

Those sensible measures would require a politician to be honest with voters. Honest about wanting to protect the most vulnerable prostitutes and honest about motives. 

At a stroke though those measures legalise prostitution and that's a difficult political pill to swallow. 

However the public would prefer this honest approach to tackle a social issue and an honest debate, rather than the current half-cocked measures pushed out for pure political advantage. 

Read More...