Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

Well, they got what they wanted. let's see them get the consequences, too. It is simply unacceptable that any of us, let alone the poorest, should pick up the bill for this bunch of clueless, avaricious chancers.

So if Natwest, Lloyds, Halifax, Northern Rock, etc, etc had been allowed to go bankrupt what do you think would have happened? I suspect it wouldn’t have been pleasant.

It would have been a nightmare. I don't think there was any real alternative to intervention. Some commentators have made an argument that some of the banks should have been allowed to go bust, and there's clearly a case for that, but the risk was that the effects would have been so wide-ranging as to create total chaos.

However, there clearly is an alternative to what is happening now - we seem to be back to handing out bonuses, we are levying a new tax which will raise less than is being handed back to them through corporation tax, and it's basically as you were with us paying the bill by letting over a million people in the public and private sectors lose their jobs over the next few years.

That is simply staggering.

[PauloBarnesi]

I think that if we become over draconian on banks they will simply move elsewhere, losing even more tax revenue. People may want a pound of flesh, but history generally says thats not always a sensible thing.

We as a country have become over reliant on the financial sector. Whatever happened to Britain actually building things, bar naval ships? And I am sure if the government could get away with it they would get them made elsewhere. But this is a larger discussion...

[Demitri_C]

has anyone seen this yet

funny stuff dont see why he did it

[drat01]

has anyone seen this yet

funny stuff dont see why he did it

Never has been anything more than a trumped up mouthpiece for the Tory party. He claims to be impartial but his past record shows that he is not and many have said that within the Political part of the BBC he is not fair and impartial at all.

Between 86 and 87 during the big years of Thatcher he was leader of the Young Conservatives. His conduct during the election was Murdoch style and you just know that one day soon he will be picking up a big fat pay cheque from Sky when he moves to work for them

[peterms]

Another comment on the merits of the approach taken by the government.

The Nobel prizewinning American economist Paul Krugman launched a scathing attack today on chancellor George Osborne's spending cuts, just as a prominent member of the Bank of England's rate setting committee argued that the cuts paved the way for strong growth.

Krugman said the policy of government austerity was based on no more than economic "fashion", for which Britons would pay the price.

In his regular New York Times column he said the thinking behind the measures, rather than being based on careful analysis, was "more like a fad, something everyone professed to believe because that was what the in-crowd was saying."

He warned: "No widespread fad ever passes, however, without leaving some fashion victims in its wake. In this case, the victims are the people of Britain, who have the misfortune to be ruled by a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won't admit that it was wrong."

Krugman, who also advocates new stimulus measures in the US to ward off a long period of anaemic growth, double-dip recession or outright deflation, believes the Cameron government's measures are a fad that will fade "as evidence has accumulated that the lessons of the past remain relevant, that trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea". Moreover, he says, the idea that markets will be more confident under a budget-cutting government "has no basis in reality".

Krugman believes the government is using the financial crisis of 2008 as a cover for advancing an ideological programme to downsize the welfare state, saying the plan "boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction" and has been sold to the public with an unprecedented and unwarranted degree of fear-mongering.

The British plan, he wrote, appears to come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the US treasury secretary who told President Herbert Hoover to fight the Great Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. "Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis". As a result, the British government seems "determined to ignore the lessons of history".

But economist Andrew Sentance, who has gained notoriety as a member of the monetary policy committee for consistently voting for an interest-rate rise, said in the Sun: "Overall, I do not think the review will endanger our recovery.

"In some areas, such as the health service and schools, spending will rise. To make room for this, spending is being cut back more heavily elsewhere. Taking public spending as a whole, it will still rise in cash terms over the next few years but slightly below inflation."

Sentance wants to raise rates to bring down inflation, which he believes has remained above the Bank's 2% target for too long. Fellow committee member Adam Posen said this month that recent economic data pointed to a weakening of demand and a decline in inflation next year.

[leviramsey]

On the B&B point, aren't motels or cheap hotels the nearest equivalent? Or is that the "voucher" system I've seen mentioned?

Cheap motels generally won't rent unless there's a credit card they can put a hold on to cover damage to the room.

(and "cheap" in that context ($60-plus a night) is generally still far above the flophouses and such (generally $10-$30 a night range adjusting for inflation) that I was discussing... not surprisingly the hotel/motel operators were all too happy to endorse and support "neighborhood cleanup" efforts to regulate flophouses out of existence as many a thrifty (and possibly closeted gay) traveling salesman saved quite a bit of money staying there instead of at a Motel 6 or whatever... whenever you hear a call to "end substandard anything", it's a fairly safe bet that there's money from the part of the industry that's just above what the standard would be behind it)

[leviramsey]

Christopher A Preble"]

What Cameron's Cuts Mean for Conservatives and Neocons

In the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) Max Boot laments that British Prime Minister David Cameron has chosen to cut the UK's defense budget by 8 percent. The cuts, documented here and here, affect the British military across the board.

I won't go into the details of Cameron's cuts here. I think many of the reductions make sense, though I question the direction that the Brits seem to be going with carriers (continuing to build two without plans to use them); I predict that the future of naval aviation will be built around smaller ships launching unmanned and remotely piloted vehicles. But that is a discussion for another time.

Of greater interest here is Boot's reaction, and the likely reaction of his "Defending Defense" fellow travelers. Just as the Heritage Foundation's Jim Carafano did on Monday, Boot closes with a warning to fiscal conservatives who believe that all forms of government spending are a legitimate target for deficit reduction:

Republicans expecting to take over one or both houses of Congress may be tempted to emulate the British example to deal with our own budget woes. But while Mr. Cameron's courageous cutbacks in bloated domestic spending should inspire admiration, his scything of defense—one of the core responsibilities of government—is an example that we would do well to avoid.

There are at least two explanations for why Cameron moved forward as he did, and neither is convenient for Mr. Boot. Indeed, it seems likely that Cameron's conservative cousins on this side of the Atlantic are prepared to scrutinize military spending in ways that make Max Boot very uncomfortable.

On the one hand, it could be that leaders in the UK still fancy their country a pillar of the West, with global interests that extend beyond the defense of the home islands. Cameron declared as much, promising that Britain would still "punch above its weight" despite the cuts. Boot intones that Cameron's "words ring hollow," but perhaps Cameron simply doesn't believe that military power is particularly useful in advancing British security interests?

If he has come to that conclusion, we all have Max Boot to thank (and George W. Bush, and Tony Blair, and the editors of the Weekly Standard, etc). After all, the limited utility of military power has been revealed in the very wars that they have so loudly championed -- the U.S. military succeeded in driving tin-pot dictators and petty tyrants from power in Baghdad and Kabul, but occupying foreign lands for nearly a decade has revealed the limits of this power, and have coincided with an erosion of American security.

Boot fixes on a second explanation for why Cameron has chosen to cut military spending: the British feel free to make these moves confident that the United States will always be there to back them up. Boot writes:

The fact that British defense capabilities are in steep decline means that even more of the burden of defending what used to be called the Free World will fall on our overstretched armed forces. The British can cut back secure in the knowledge that Uncle Sam will protect them if anything goes truly wrong.

In Boot's telling, Cameron's decision inevitably places a heavier burden on the shoulders of American taxpayers and American troops.

But why should Americans perform a function for other governments that they are obligated by tradition, law and reason to perform for themselves? Defense is, as Boot notes, "one of the core responsibilities of government." I would go one better: defense is one of the only legitimate responsibilities for government. So why does Max Boot think that Americans should simply resign themselves to take on this burden, doing for others what they should do for themselves?

I suspect that he fears that most Americans are not comfortable with the role that he and his neoconservative allies have preached for nearly two decades, hence his preemptive shot across the bow of the incoming congressional class that will have been elected on a platform of reducing the burden of government. True, the public is easily swayed, and not inclined to vote on foreign policy matters, in general, but as I noted here on Monday, it seems unlikely that the same Tea Partiers who want the U.S. government to do less in the United States are anxious to do more everywhere else. And, indeed, such sentiments are not confined to conservatives and constitutionalists who are keenly aware of government's inherent limitations. Recent surveys by the Chicago Council of on Global Affairs (.pdf) and the Pew Research Center (here) definitively demonstrate that the public writ large is anxious to shed the role of global policeman.

Boot and the neocons continue to swim against this current. Who else will swim with them? And can they get elected if they do so? Sharon Angle's evasive answer in a debate last week suggests that at least one insurgent candidate doesn't think so. I'm willing to bet that she's not alone.

Christopher A. Preble is the director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He is the author of three books including The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous and Less Free (Cornell University Press, 2009), which documents the enormous costs of America's military power, and proposes a new grand strategy to advance U.S. security; and John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap (Northern Illinois University Press, 2004), which explores the political economy of military spending during the 1950s and early 1960s. Preble is also the lead author of Exiting Iraq: How the U.S. Must End the Occupation and Renew the War against Al Qaeda (Cato Institute, 2004); and he co-edited, with Jim Harper and Benjamin Friedman, Terrorizing Ourselves: Why U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Is Failing and How to Fix It (Cato Institute, 2010).

[Gringo]

Christopher A Preble"]

I predict that the future of naval aviation will be built around smaller ships launching unmanned and remotely piloted vehicles. But that is a discussion for another time.

That bit I agree with. But it's uncomfortable to relay to the people - the fact that wars are now fought by machines, and you can't have a room full of remote pilots to fly a squadron of drones, it would have to be done by computers. So you have computers in charge of the machines. Not sure I've finished with this post, in fact I think I'll be back.

[snowychap]

Ha ha.

[Awol]

Boot fixes on a second explanation for why Cameron has chosen to cut military spending: the British feel free to make these moves confident that the United States will always be there to back them up.

This is true but the defence cut decisions were taken after extensive coordination with the US political and military establishment, and despite earlier appearances a long term plan has (so I'm informed) been laid down.

Our strategy remains to fight any international wars we need to as an adjunct to US forces. That has meant reinforcing short term spending on areas where the Pentagon knows we can add real and immediate value to their capability, namely our special forces (as evidenced to them in Baghdad/Afghanistan).

Our armies already fight hand in glove and no other two first world nations have such operational coordination. In the medium term our naval capability is being designed to the same end of interoperability by having carriers that operate the same fighter aircraft, use the same procedures and share a common logistical chain. They also value our Sub's (an area where we remain truly world class) hence the new Astute class being protected - and run aground yesterday by a man soon to be driving a desk.

Financing that is a big hit to the UK defence budget (because of what we chose to spend on NHS, welfare etc) so the US will cover us in certain areas now in order to achieve further long term integration between the two armed forces. Post 2020 when the economy is is in good shape again we will still have a core capability to build around - those carriers have a life expectancy of 50 years btw.

Levi described us as "America's Gurkhas" and there is truth in that, although it's not as one sided as the comment suggests. If that role is the price of our national insurance policy and allows us to spend pretty much as we please on our welfare state, it's cheap at the price.

In return America keeps the UK firmly within their sphere of influence. Despite our reduced hard power (although we retain extremely capable armed forces) that means access to certain technological innovations that even they don't have, our human foreign intelligence capability (superb) and the diplomatic and cultural networks that are the legacy of empire. Many people on here seriously underate the influence the UK still has in the world, particularly in areas we once ruled. The power brokers in Washington are under no such illusions and the limitations of bombs and bullets in Iraq/Afghan have proven the value of such soft power.

It's an unequal relationship but like anything else in life you get out what you are prepared to put in.

[Awol]

Christopher A Preble"]

I predict that the future of naval aviation will be built around smaller ships launching unmanned and remotely piloted vehicles. But that is a discussion for another time.

That bit I agree with. But it's uncomfortable to relay to the people - the fact that wars are now fought by machines, and you can't have a room full of remote pilots to fly a squadron of drones, it would have to be done by computers.

There is an SME on here who will hopefully comment, but I would think the relevant technology to fully replace manned military flight across the board is a few decades away yet.

[drat01]

So while people are claiming that these cuts are not idealogical, how coincidental then that the biggest losers will be traditional Labour areas while Tory "rural" areas will get away with little / no impact from the cuts

Tory attack Labour areas and protect Tory areas

Benefits, services and jobs will be hit, although rich Tory rural areas will be relatively unscathed

Urban areas will bear the brunt of the spending cuts announced this week with every major English city facing a triple whammy of the biggest job losses, council cuts and benefit withdrawals, a Guardian analysis of the impact of the key decisions reveals.

Local authorities with dense populations face the deepest cuts, according to a breakdown of the measures by George Osborne to slash council spending, reduce child benefit and cut the educational maintenance allowance. The predicted 490,000 job losses in the public sector will fall most heavily on cities.

The analysis also suggests that not only will the rural-urban divide widen, but that the worst hit areas are also largely Labour strongholds, with wealthier rural – and traditionally Tory constituencies – suffering relatively little. The Guardian's analysis considered the number of job losses expected in every local authority by applying the 8.3% of public sector jobs losses that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts

........ more on link

This is the thing that this Gvmt seem to forget that people will actually look at what they are doing rather than take in all the usual political spin bollox that they try and feed through their usual mouthpieces.

To see Clegg, Osborne and Cameron laughing about this yesterday was just disgusting.

The more I see all of this I suppose the ConDem label maybe a bit away from the truth. This is a Con led Gvmt with very right wing Con led ideals. The fact that Clegg has sold his and his party's soul for his return to the Conservative party, shows as much about him as anything else. The LibDem's as a party are now finished, completely and utterly never to be trusted again in UK politics. Cameron will continue to use the old LibDem members to front the bad news while continuing to inflict the ideals and policies of his Tory party on the UK.

Murdoch the other day paid tribute to Thatcher in a frankly stomach churning event. The words he spoke could so easily be applied to Cameron et al. No wonder he feels at ease supporting Cameron

[Awol]

So while people are claiming that these cuts are not idealogical, how coincidental then that the biggest losers will be traditional Labour areas while Tory "rural" areas will get away with little / no impact from the cuts

Err, any cuts will effect cities more because more people live in cities than the countryside and public sector jobs are necessarily concentrated in areas with higher population. That's not exactly blindlingly insightful analysis by Polly Curtis.

Benefits, services and jobs will be hit, although rich Tory rural areas will be relatively unscathed

Her agenda is fairly obvious from the off.. "Rich Tory rural areas" (Booo!) vs what? Heroic and poor urban Labour areas (Hurrah!)? There ain't too many of the former about.

Murdoch the other day paid tribute to Thatcher in a frankly stomach churning event. The words he spoke could so easily be applied to Cameron et al. No wonder he feels at ease supporting Cameron

In the same way he supported Blair so easily? You're quite myopic when it comes to old Rupert, do you think people have forgotten that he supported Labour for 12.5 of their 13 years in charge??!

[drat01]

Jon - Interesting how the Tory supporters always seem to try and justify Murdoch by saying "its OK he supported Blair".

I am struggling to find any reference to VT'ers where they welcomed this support. Maybe you can show when this happened? Murdoch's words this week re Thatcher showed more about him and the policies that he and Cameron follow than we have seen for a long time. Rather than deflect (again) why not try and defend or comment on his polices and his way of political influence.

Also the first points, Hmmm now correct me if I am wrong but one of the "catchphrases" of this Gvmt is "we are all in this together". Surely then by imposing polices that specifically attack certain areas geographically shows that catchphrase up to be nothing more than bollox. Add to that the indications that the poor will be more affected than the rich in society again, rubbishes the claims. These are ideologically led cuts the fact they impact certain areas that are outside of Tory support make them more appealing and more likely to be forced through with speed and force and with little regard to the impact.

We are all in this together, in the words of the panto - Oh no we are not

[snowychap]

There is an SME on here who will hopefully comment, but I would think the relevant technology to fully replace manned military flight across the board is a few decades away yet.

In the light of technological changes in the last three or four decades, it might take a brave forecaster to say what will and won't come about in the next few. :winkold:

Separately, on the government now not liking the IFS and saying that its analysis is rubbish, nonsense, &c.: it was interesting to hear both Phillip 'It's not even tax avoidance' Hammond (on Question Time) and Francis Maude (on Newsnight) still referring to the one part of the IFS analysis that they think makes the spending review/june budget look okay (in terms of distributional analysis) - the bit about the top decile.

Clutching at straws?

[Awol]

Jon - Interesting how the Tory supporters always seem to try and justify Murdoch by saying "its OK he supported Blair".

I am struggling to find any reference to VT'ers where they welcomed this support. Maybe you can show when this happened? Murdoch's words this week re Thatcher showed more about him and the policies that he and Cameron follow than we have seen for a long time. Rather than deflect (again) why not try and defend or comment on his polices and his way of political influence.

I'm not defending Murdoch's influence over British politics, it is profoundly damaging to our democracy imo. All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that it has been that way for at least 25 years, and although you may not have specifically praised his support of Labour you certainly didn't come out saying that it was bad thing. In effect Labour's (and their supporters) silent acquiescence to his previous support makes your anger now seem a little manufactured.

Surely then by imposing polices that specifically attack certain areas geographically shows that catchphrase up to be nothing more than bollox.

Not sure what you aren't getting here. If the public sector needs to be reduced in size (and it does) and the majority of those jobs are necessarily not in sparsely populated areas (as common sense dictates) then how can cuts do anything but affect urban areas more than rural?

Add to that the indications that the poor will be more affected than the rich in society again, rubbishes the claims.

Unemployed people are generally poorer than employed people, yes? Therefore how can cuts to unemployment benefit affect the rich (or employed) more than the poor (or unemployed)? They have (admittedly rather bluntly) tried to mitigate that by withdrawing child benefit from higher rate tax payers (the "rich") and not for the unemployed or low income earners (the "poor"), but cutting welfare is obviously going to affect the recipients of those payments.

Do you think it's ok for 30% of total government spending to go on Welfare because I don't recall you commenting on that before?

[myb]

I find it staggering that we can have a group on here who actually believe the cuts announced are fair and proportionate. I find it even more staggering that there are people who believe 'the other lot' would have made a better job of it.

Both useless, both out to protect their own vested interests and both not proposing anything which would deal with the root cause of the problem.

[Demitri_C]

Jon - Interesting how the Tory supporters always seem to try and justify Murdoch by saying "its OK he supported Blair".

I am struggling to find any reference to VT'ers where they welcomed this support. Maybe you can show when this happened? Murdoch's words this week re Thatcher showed more about him and the policies that he and Cameron follow than we have seen for a long time. Rather than deflect (again) why not try and defend or comment on his polices and his way of political influence.

ahem

i dont see how you can critise murdoch here when he did the same for the last 12 years ian, im afraid your wide of the mark here

[avfc89]

I was quite surprised by the cheering in relation to the cuts; I would of thought they would have the decency to refrain, especially in a solemn situation such as this.

[chrisp65]

I was quite surprised by the cheering in relation to the cuts; I would of thought they would have the decency to refrain, especially in a solemn situation such as this.

I'd expect it to feature prominently in the next labour party political on a tv near you soon.

Regardless of context or intent or anything else, a tory millionaire announces cuts and tory backbenchers cheered.

I'd have expected a bit more control from the whips.

Both sides are quite amateurish at present.

On the subject of party politicals, I can't wait for the next Liberal one. I mean, where on earth do they go with it? Hey, vote for us again and we'll actually do what we promised last time! Hey, vote for us and we'll do what we **** well like! Hey, vote for us and we'll pop your concerns into the Clegg randomiser and see what pops out! Hey, vote for us.....hello?hello? is anyone still watching?