Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

IDS failed leader previously, now in charge of some of the most hard hitting and important of the Gvmt's schemes.

Different subject but it seems that Cameron is really pulling in all of the friends and family favours. Not content with helping his mates who supported him with propaganda letters to the press and donations to the Tory party by giving them advantages on business deals with China, Murdoch Jnr was also a guest at chequers over the weekend just as the whole supposedly official investigation into the BSKYB thing happens. Rotten to the core!

[snowychap]

And for those of us who had a rather quizzical look when Gordo claimed to have abolished boom and bust, I'm sure I heard IDS claim earlier that he would be abolishing long term unemployment (JSA, at least). :shock:

[bickster]

IDS failed leader previously, now in charge of some of the most hard hitting and important of the Gvmt's schemes.

Different subject but it seems that Cameron is really pulling in all of the friends and family favours. Not content with helping his mates who supported him with propaganda letters to the press and donations to the Tory party by giving them advantages on business deals with China, Murdoch Jnr was also a guest at chequers over the weekend just as the whole supposedly official investigation into the BSKYB thing happens. Rotten to the core!

Entertaining the Murdochs is hardly the sole preserve of the Tories now is it

[drat01]

Well the timing of it is certainly a thought provoker as to what was discussed

[Awol]

Well the timing of it is certainly a thought provoker as to what was discussed

St Tony used to have Murdoch over to No 10 for lunch once a month, so obviously Labour must have been "rotten to the core".

Get over it.

[bickster]

I doubt any of the **** that are in power these days, whether they be blue or red get very far away from Murdochs tentacles on any given hour of any day of the week. Might as well invite them round, everyone knows they'll be on the phone anyway.

But yes despicable

[blandy]

we don't have to reduce the deficit asap. In the short term, we should increase it. Those who argue otherwise are proceeding on the basis either of a misplaced analogy with an individual firm or household, or else don't understand the difference in government deficit as between having a fiat currency, and being pegged to something like the gold standard. Or possibly both misapprehensions.

I'm not sure it's a simple as everyone [who doesn't agree with you] is labouring under a misapprehension. From my perspective, there are absolutely steps that should have been taken a while back and still need taking - some which will increase borrowing (like the one above) and others which will decrease costs (like some of the Tory stuff on welfare spending). I wouldn't be so dogmatic as to say "we must borrow more /we must borrow less" right now. What we must do is have a credible plan to bring debt back in balance over time. part of that plan involves cutting money wasted, part involves spending in infrastructure areas, part in trade, part in tax changes and so on.

Well, I say they are misapprehensions because for the first one, the government is the monopoly issuer of currency in its own area of jurisdiction, and households and firms aren't; this means that governments can and do choose to issue credit to fund things, where firms and households must fund things through savings or borrowing (nb governments issuing credit is not the same as borrowing). And for the second, we do have a fiat currency and not one pegged to eg a gold standard (regardless of the wishes of the head of the World Bank to return to it); and as a consequence of that, what happens with deficits is recognisably different in our situation than if we were on the gold standard, though much commentary doesn't recognise this.

We can usefully distinguish private and public debt in this discussion. Private debt has spiralled in recent years, with people getting mortgages at 5x salary, credit cards paying for ever more consumption and so on. People are trying to reduce their debt levels at present, as usually happens in recession, and so government deficit rises as a matter of accounting identity, as Snowy referenced a few pages back.

Government debt is a different creature. Deficits run by governments don't have to be funded by the issuance of debt. But much current comment proceeds on the basis that if there is a government deficit, it must immediately be funded by government borrowing, which becomes a burden on future generations and which we must eradicate by slashing government spending and throwing people out of work.

It is this approach which I have referred to as apparently resting either on a confusion between what a government can do and what a household can do and failing to see the relevant differences between them, or else confusing what happens when your currency is on the gold standard compared to when it isn't.

That's all fair enough. I do think that one area that isn't discussed much, though, is that of tax changes. There's a lot on QE, a lot on the merits or otherwise of changes to benefits, but all the parties, and hence much of the discussion, tend to overlook what could be done in terms of raising Gov't income through taxation of various things, higher incomes, bank levvies (though some action has been discussed/taken).

I worry that QE is like a one off hit, but if you keep doing it, then it doesn't work. I think this is Awol's point, and I agree. Yes, do it once, maybe twice, but after that any argument for doing it again is (IMO) from what I've read and tried to understand, daft, as it's counter productive.

We don't want to get to a place where interest rates climb, debt repayment soars as a result (as would personal debt repayment) and thus the economy dips again/further as a result of people and Gov't having less funding - a viscious cycle. Surely we want a kick start, and then growth, not a kick start, then a drop back, then another kick...etc.

This to me is why action on reducing the defecit through cuts as well as spending is valid. Changing the profile of what money is spent on. Go after tax avoidance, go after benefit fraud, go after lifestyle claimants, change the norm as to what is acceptable for individuals, whether they be directors, lazy arses, or Gov't ministers can "get away with".

It's right to make a moral point about "picking on the weak" in terms of claimants, it's also right to make a moral point about the way people in work, but not on benefits are funding all kinds of things that are not "fair". It's right to make a moral point about ridiculous "rewards" for company directors who under-perform, or are negligent.

it's not right to concentrate on every man for themselves, or on the in-built Tory bias towards helping their likely donors and "friends" in Hedge funds and so on.

All those private sector business people who wrote saying how right the Gov't plans were, how they'd create jobs in the private sector - they've all been busy doing the opposite - laying people off from the private sector.

How much tax does Murdoch pay in the UK? And how is that right? or Philip Green - another enthusiastic advocate of the Gov'ts "fair" policies? They're not interested in fairness, they're interested in sustaining their wealth and their tax avoiding lifestyles and interests. And for a few donations or a few supportive editorials, they'll get their wish. They'll get a neutered BBC, they'll get caveats for tax havens etc.

[snowychap]

MP from Thurrock: "Landlords will either have to reduce their rents or get out of the market."

Won't that decrease supply (assuming no susbstitute actors who will take their place)?

[Awol]

MP from Thurrock: "Landlords will either have to reduce their rents or get out of the market."

Won't that decrease supply (assuming no susbstitute actors who will take their place)?

Not a sellers market at the moment so that's not a great option for landlords, presumably the other option is going into the private rental market. Does that produce a higher return for landlords than a modest cut in rent to their existing government clients?

[Awol]

Can anyone tell me any good news?

Yep!

Labour MPs 'mutiny' against leadership in support of Phil Woolas

Labour MPs are in open 'mutiny' over Harriet Harman's decision to expel Phil Woolas from the party as he appeals a ruling that he lied about election opponents.

.........

Mr Woolas is in Westminster this week and has been seen canvassing fellow MPs for financial support for his legal challenge.

He told his local paper: “I've been overwhelmed. There has been backing from political allies and opponents. They realise the damage this decision could do to democracy.

........

Quite so, imagine the damage to democracy if politicians weren't allowed to tell lies about their opponents in an election campaign...

BTW, I figured that this was relevant to the new government because the opposition appear set to utterly discredited themselves even further as a semi-credible alternative. Pity.

EDIT: That's a lie, I just couldn't believe how stupid they are and couldn't be arsed to start a whole new thread.

Feel free to point/laugh/shake your head in wonder at the utter stupidity of the Labour rank and file MP's.

[drat01]

Well the timing of it is certainly a thought provoker as to what was discussed

St Tony used to have Murdoch over to No 10 for lunch once a month, so obviously Labour must have been "rotten to the core".

Get over it.

Laughable defence again Jon for any condemnation of this government.

There is a major issue here with access to media, one which the Murdoch empire are at the heart of. The fact that they have supported directly through various ways the Tory party is obviously then coincidence, and the timing of a friendly pie and a pint at chequers was nothing more than coincidence was it?

Shame that you cannot or will not allow yourself to see what is happening here, especially after your comments previously about liberties and influence

[snowychap]

MP from Thurrock: "Landlords will either have to reduce their rents or get out of the market."

Won't that decrease supply (assuming no susbstitute actors who will take their place)?

Not a sellers market at the moment so that's not a great option for landlords, presumably the other option is going into the private rental market. Does that produce a higher return for landlords than a modest cut in rent to their existing government clients?

I'm pretty sure that she meant 'get out of the market' full stop (not differentiating between the sources of that rental income) as she said something about them not being the kind of landlords that were wanted anyway.

When you speak about modest cut I think you get in to an interesting territory. It's something I've seen a couple of people write on and that is incidence and that the incidence of a tax (and correspondingly a benefit) may well not fall on the intended sufferer/recipient.

I think there is a big danger here that even in those situations where certain landlords have taken advantage of the housing benefit system (it's barmy to think that they've done that since the introduction of LHA, those that have sought to take advantage of these things have done that all the time), those who will suffer the incidence of the removal of the benefit will be the weak in the marketplace(i.e. the tenant) and that the incidence will fall, on the whole, upon them to satisfy the shortfall (and that is without going in to the supply issues that I pointed out that the bods in the Cambridge paper, linked earlier, had suggested were the case).

Edit: There is far too much 'stands to reason' style of debate in the houses of parliament. It's really, really poor.

[Awol]

Laughable defence again Jon for any condemnation of this government.

It's not a defence Ian, just pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your position on this.

Shame that you cannot or will not allow yourself to see what is happening here, especially after your comments previously about liberties and influence

I've done so in this thread so you don't have to go far to find it. It's utterly wrong.

[drat01]

Laughable defence again Jon for any condemnation of this government.

It's not a defence Ian, just pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your position on this.

Shame that you cannot or will not allow yourself to see what is happening here, especially after your comments previously about liberties and influence

I've done so in this thread so you don't have to go far to find it. It's utterly wrong.

Hypocrisy, where? As you have made that allegation I am interested to see how you have come to that conclusion.

[snowychap]

On the Woolas thing, it's quite a bizarre response.

I do understand the 'defend one's brother' idea but I think they fail to defend the interests of the electorate and that should be of more import, surely?

[drat01]

On the Woolas thing, it's quite a bizarre response.

I do understand the 'defend one's brother' idea but I think they fail to defend the interests of the electorate and that should be of more import, surely?

But if they believe that there is a case to be taken to appeal and the various next levels then fair enough its for them to help out.

Luckily in this country we do have various rights of appeal and long may that continue.

The ideals of democratic elections as a "fair fight" are long since gone. Politicians and their media allies (from both sides) basically lie and tell what they know will cause maximum damage to their opponents with little respect for the electorate. Is that a good and or right thing? Of course it isn't but when you have the money and influence that is obviously out there and seemingly rewarded for this support, it will always happen.

As for Woolas if he feels that he has enough chance to win an appeal then let him, it's his right to do so. What the outcome will be we shall see and I still think that there will be other "cases" that come to light.

[peterms]

...one area that isn't discussed much, though, is that of tax changes. There's a lot on QE, a lot on the merits or otherwise of changes to benefits, but all the parties, and hence much of the discussion, tend to overlook what could be done in terms of raising Gov't income through taxation of various things, higher incomes, bank levies (though some action has been discussed/taken).

It's a strange one, this thing about taxation creating government spending power. The current theory (or one of them), which sounds quite counterintuitive, is that if you were to pay your taxes in cash, the government would destroy the banknotes you had paid with. Sounds unbelievable. The logic is that the purpose of taxation is not to raise revenue (because government spending happens way before revenue is raised, at least in the modern economy) but to prompt individuals and firms to produce either goods or labour to meet tax demands. And also that since a government (at least a sovereign one in charge of its own currency, like us) can issue credit or "print money" at any time, the idea of "saving" in its own currency is a logical non-starter. That's a bit of a brain-teaser.

Surely we want a kick start, and then growth, not a kick start, then a drop back, then another kick...etc.

This to me is why action on reducing the deficit through cuts as well as spending is valid. Changing the profile of what money is spent on. Go after tax avoidance, go after benefit fraud, go after lifestyle claimants, change the norm as to what is acceptable for individuals, whether they be directors, lazy arses, or Gov't ministers can "get away with".

Yes. But that state of affairs is the holy grail of economic policy...

The rest of your post returns us to values and principles which should underpin policy. I think people lose sight of this too much. The whole and entire point of economic policy is in pursuit of social goals and values, not chasing numbers round spreadsheets or devising more complex equations. And the values you put forward are absolutely on the nail, in my view.

[Awol]

Laughable defence again Jon for any condemnation of this government.

It's not a defence Ian, just pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your position on this.

Shame that you cannot or will not allow yourself to see what is happening here, especially after your comments previously about liberties and influence

I've done so in this thread so you don't have to go far to find it. It's utterly wrong.

Hypocrisy, where? As you have made that allegation I am interested to see how you have come to that conclusion.

Easily, Ian. You bang on about the Tory relationship with Murdoch as if this was somenew plitical phenomenon, yet said nothing about his monthly invitation to chat with Blair in No 10 for a decade. I'm guessing becuase at that point he supported 'your' side.

If you'd been banging on about it at the time then I'd say fair one for doing so now. You weren't though, so the faux outrage directed at Murdoch changing horses seems hypocritical to say the least.

[peterms]

On the Woolas thing, it's quite a bizarre response.

I do understand the 'defend one's brother' idea but I think they fail to defend the interests of the electorate and that should be of more import, surely?

I think it's less about the principles of the issue than about in-groups within the party.

Woolas has from time immemorial been a prime operator of cliques, factions, alliances, several of which have been delighted to see fellow members of the party expelled for having views which were more akin to the 1945 government than the ba-ba Blairites who took over the party. Electoral law, still less the good of the electorate or the integrity of the system, seem to come a poor second to keeping in place a man who has only ever had one calling, that of careerist. Or so some would say. I'm sure they're wrong, mind.

[snowychap]

But if they believe that there is a case to be taken to appeal and the various next levels then fair enough its for them to help out.

Luckily in this country we do have various rights of appeal and long may that continue.

The ideals of democratic elections as a "fair fight" are long since gone. Politicians and their media allies (from both sides) basically lie and tell what they know will cause maximum damage to their opponents with little respect for the electorate. Is that a good and or right thing? Of course it isn't but when you have the money and influence that is obviously out there and seemingly rewarded for this support, it will always happen.

As for Woolas if he feels that he has enough chance to win an appeal then let him, it's his right to do so. What the outcome will be we shall see and I still think that there will be other "cases" that come to light.

Ian, I really think that you are conflating two issues.

I understand the temptation to do so but I really think that knowingly condoning the promotion of untruths about another candidate's personal character is a slightly different thing than partisan cobblers.

Neither are good, I'll agree, but the former is even more appalling than the latter.

To conflate the two probably distracts from the equally serious (or even more serious overall) impact of the media, corporations, &c.

I certainly wouldn't deny Woolas the proper right of appeal (has he gone to the Court of Appeal in the end or is it another attempt at a judicial review) but the vehemence of the brotherly love will look more than stupid, it will look 'institutionally' (though I don't really like that term) corrupt. I think that's a mistake.

I personally think that Woolas's campaign was disgraceful. It wasn't however unique (ironically, there are lots of reports of LibDem campaigns over the past decade or so of being really bad).

I've never seen it as an adequate defence for someone to point to someone else in the playground and say, " Them's as bad as me."