Play the point, fellers.

OK, I've been interviewed by journalists once or twice in the past. Your meaning may be lost in the hazardous journey between your mouth and the machine that prints your words onto paper. Your words need to negotiate the journalist's understanding, interpretation, agenda, mistakes . . .

However, I was struck by this exchange in yesterday's Guardian.

Theresa May, the shadow work and pensions secretary, claimed that the government's back-to-work plans lay in tatters at a time of rising unemployment. The documents show that existing schemes will end on 29 June, leaving a gap of just over three months until the Flexible New Deal is introduced across half the country on 5 October.

Just under 10% of the 700,000 people claiming the Jobseeker's Allowance will be affected. Only a small proportion of people claiming the allowance have to move on to the back to work programmes. They are young people who are referred after six months, people over the age of 25 who are referred after 18 months and people who volunteer themselves.

May said: "Labour's big plan to get people back to work lies in tatters. First they close hundreds of job centres now they close unemployment schemes. The government has been recklessly casting those who need their help the most adrift and are sleepwalking their way through this unemployment crisis."

The reply, as printed, from James Purnell's spokesman (a civil servant?):

"The Conservatives want to scrap the New Deal and are opposing the £2bn extra investment we are putting in. The hypocrisy of Theresa May's crocodile tears is only matched by her inability to understand her brief - as of this month, there is more help for long-term job seekers, not less."

Putting aside the two claims made at the beginning of the reply (although I don't recall that either are true). We then get an assertion that Theresa May doesn't really care about the unemployed, followed by a dismissal of her ability.

After that we get the claim that there is more help for long-term job seekers this month (compared to what?). This does not address the specific point made about the period from 29 June to 05 October.

Perhaps those people suffering from unemployment deserve better.

First post

Why another blog? Simple -- for me to develop my voice. We only get a few years on earth and there might just be something for me to say in the time that I have left.

The point? Well, I have become increasingly fascinated by the worlds of Politics and Economics, despite a mainly technical education ending with a PhD in something or other to do with chemical reactions and turbulence.

If there is to be an over-riding theme to this blog, it is my aim to present something in contrast to the ad-hominem style of argument that goes on. I just get a bit annoyed with the line of thinking that goes something like:

"Don't listen to what Bob has got to say about anything, he's a typical Tory."

"Don't listen to what Bob has got to say about anything, he's a typical Labour politician."

Don't get me wrong, character and track-record are important. If the Yorkshire Ripper were allowed to stand for office, most people would probably not vote for him, even if he were to present a series of well thought-out policies on the economy, employment, trade etc.

However, the simple fact is that neither David Cameron nor Gordon Brown (the two leaders who will, most likely, be contesting the next UK General Election) are evil, incompetent idiots. Both are complex, intelligent, gifted and well-meaning men who have been chosen, somehow, by their Parties to lead them; and, after the election, their country.

So, perhaps this will only be read by me and Mum, but I'll be noodling away until I've found a voice.