Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Gringo]

Socialists tend to want to deny our imperialistic past, where we ruled large parts of the world, yet at the same time seem to want us to interfere in other countries.

What socialists? When was the last socialist govt?

[Awol]

On a lighter note, Quantitative Easing explained..

[avfc89]

Labour leading in the Voting Polls.

With no policies, a wet leader and a record of authoritarianism and economic ruin.

What can you say, people are **** stupid.

I think it says more about the belief in the Coalition Government.

[thetrees]

My view is that we should treat other countries, like other people, as we would wish to be treated. You clearly don't feel the same. If you think that exploitation, invasion, undermining and so on are perfectly acceptable, then I think we are so far apart that dialogue is pointless.

You also seem to miss the point by a remarkable extent. It's not that we uniquely have a role in protecting people from their own governments (though I think we as others, have a moral duty to do that, which usually, like in Rwanda, we fail); it's that we should stop interfering in other countries for our own benefit.

With respect Peter it is you who appears to have missed my point.

I believe in zero interference in other countries, so no exploitation, no invasion, no undermining, and no saving the people from themselves.

The thin grey line is that we may embark on something for our own benefit which is dressed up as a 'moral duty', with Iraq seeming to be the biggest example of that. The flip side of course is that we may embark on a 'moral duty' and then fall accused of furthering our own interests.

We can never do right, so for me the simplest answer is to leave other countries to their own devices.

[snowychap]

Coalition shelves plans to protect public sector whistleblowers

Guardian pledge tracker project finds promise to shield those who reveal dangerous or corrupt practices has been dropped

Which coalition pledges have been broken?

The coalition appears to have shelved plans to introduce new protections for public sector workers who blow the whistle on dangerous, corrupt or incompetent practices, the Guardian has learned.

A promise to protect whistleblowers in the public sector was one of a series in the coalition's plans designed to make government more transparent. It follows concerns that people have been too afraid to speak up when things are going wrong in government, schools, hospitals or social services, for fear of later being penalised.

A plan for a "big society day" to celebrate volunteers working in the public sector, part of David Cameron's major programme of reform to encourage community groups to take over services, has also been quietly shelved.

The coalition document, which set out the agenda for the Liberal Democrats and Conservative government in May, says: "We will introduce new protections for whistleblowers in the public sector."

A draft structural reform plan in June, updated again in October, noted that work had started on how the whistleblower protections could be implemented, stating that the plans were "ongoing". However, the measure was omitted from a final business plan for the Cabinet Office published two weeks ago. The plans for a national day to "celebrate and encourage social action", another promise in the coalition document, has also fallen off the government's immediate agenda.

The omissions were identified through a unique project the Guardian is undertaking to track the progress of all the coalition's plans and identify drift from the original coalition agreement. The pledge tracker project will be constantly updated to track progress on government work to identify where delays occur.

American federal employees have had legal protections to blow the whistle for over 20 years and the rules were expanded last year so that they cannot be punished at work for alerting the authorities to misuse of technical or scientific advice and to provide a channel for people to provide evidence about federal agencies directly to the US Congress.

The Cabinet Office insisted the plans for new protections for whistleblowers would go ahead, but could not give any timescale. One union leader claimed they were being delayed for fear that cuts would create such turbulence in the public sector that protection for whistleblowers would prove too problematic for the government.

Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, the biggest civil service union, said: "It might be convenient for the coalition to ditch this commitment at the same time as stirring deep resentment and anger among public sector workers, but it would be morally indefensible. No one understands the importance and value of public services more than those who work to deliver them and they should have every right to stand up and defend those services from being cut or undermined."

David Cameron said last week that he wanted the government to become one of the most transparent in the world as he took the unprecedented step of publishing accounts of nearly all government spending since May. It was the latest step in the coalition's promises to make government more transparent, which have also included publishing names of senior civil servants and pay structures across the government, and was warmly welcomed by freedom of information advocates, including the information commissioner, Christopher Graham.

However, ministers have acknowledged struggling with some areas of the transparency agenda. The Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude, said last week that such a high level of transparency would be "uncomfortable" for ministers, but that by opening public scrutiny it would help eliminate waste and companies would be encouraged to undercut one another.

He also revealed that he has faced opposition from businesses to plans to publish all public sector contracts above £25,000 from January, removing confidentiality clauses from all such contracts unless there were compelling legal reasons – which might include national security or protecting personal data – not to.

[leviramsey]

and whats wrong with that peter? if they are fit enough to work at least we keep them active and doing something?

its only 30hours a week so they still ahve plenty of time to look for a job too

Several things, in my view.

Community service is a penal alternative to custody, not a means of helping unemployed people.

It is presented as a way of helping people get some experience which will help in finding work, but of course as it is being used as a sanction, and will therefore become something which stigmatises, not strengthens a CV.

It won't be of use to real employers, who won't welcome having to supervise people who really don't want to be there - and who would want to be placed on forced community service?

And as Rowan Willams has said, it will drive people into a feeling of vulnerability and possibly despair.

Let's be clear about this, it's an idea whose value is about building a narrative that people on benefits are workshy scroungers, and this narrative is part of the government's agenda, trying to build some political support for the cuts they are making. It's got nothing whatever to do with helping people into work; the obvious way of doing that would be to take action to create jobs, rather than destroy jobs as they are doing. Instead of doing that, they are throwing literally billions at the financiers, socialising the losses they have made while allowing them to keep whatever gains they make, and along the way massively damaging the living standards of vast numbers of people to pay for this largesse.

If someone had suggested a few years ago that such a thing would happen, and would not be met by mass riots, I just wouldn't have believed it. Thing is, it's things like this that help to persuade people that unemployment is really something caused by the unemployed, rather than a direct and avoidable outcome of government policy.

I know it's been a couple of weeks, but that is basically the exact prescription advocated by Billy Mitchell (of billyblog fame, which you so approvingly link to; indeed he goes so far as to say that his spending proposals only work in concert with the job guarantee): the replacement of jobless benefits with minimum wage jobs doing work for public benefit.

The JG is based on a buffer stock principle whereby the public sector offers a fixed wage job to anyone willing and able to work thereby establishing and maintaining a buffer stock of employed workers. This buffer stock expands when private sector activity declines, and declines when private sector activity expands, much like today's unemployed buffer stocks.

The JG thus fulfils an absorption function to minimise the real costs associated with the flux of the private sector. When private sector employment declines, public sector employment will automatically react and increase its payrolls. So in a recession, the increase in public employment will increase net government spending, and stimulate aggregate demand and the economy. Conversely, in a boom, the decline of public sector employment and spending caused by workers leaving their JG jobs for higher paid private sector employment will lessen stimulation, so the JG functions as an automatic stabilizer controlling inflation. The nation always remains fully employed, with a changing mix between private and public sector employment. Since the JG wage is open to everyone, it will functionally become the national minimum wage. To avoid disturbing the private sector wage structure and to ensure the JG is consistent with price stability, the JG wage rate should probably be set at the current legal minimum wage.

Under the JG, people of working age who are not in full-time education and have less than 35 hours per week of paid employment would be entitled to the balance of 35 hours paid employment, undertaking work of public benefit at the minimum wage. The aim is to replace unemployment and underemployment with paid employment (up to the hours desired by workers), so that those who are at any point in time surplus to the requirements of the private sector (and mainstream public sector) can earn a reasonable living rather than suffer the indignity and insecurity of underemployment, poverty, and social exclusion.

[snowychap]

I know it's been a couple of weeks, but that is basically the exact prescription advocated by Billy Mitchell...

Is it?

Are you comparing a scheme (the job guarantee) that would provide paid employment at a minimum wage with something which would, effectively, see some people doing short term, unpaid, full time tasks (quite possibly at the whim of an individual advisor)?

Apologies if I've read your post wrongly.

[leviramsey]

I know it's been a couple of weeks, but that is basically the exact prescription advocated by Billy Mitchell...

Is it?

Are you comparing a scheme (the job guarantee) that would provide paid employment at a minimum wage with something which would, effectively, see some people doing short term, unpaid, full time tasks (quite possibly at the whim of an individual advisor)?

Apologies if I've read your post wrongly.

But you'd get paid after the fact with the jobless benefit (which wouldn't exist in a job guarantee system). There's no practical difference.

[tonyh29]

Community service is a penal alternative to custody, not a means of helping unemployed people.

is it ... have you not ever helped out in your community out of a sense of well community , i know i have

And as Rowan Willams has said, it will drive people into a feeling of vulnerability and possibly despair.

I actually think the opposite ..doing something worthwhile no matter what I think can give you a sense of purpose

I'm easily the worlds worse DIY man but every now and then I'll have a stab at things , the sense of achievement once you complete a task is quite rewarding. A task that ordinarily i'd have had to pay someone to do , and i did it myself , and it didn't fall off the wall and take half the wallpaper with it .. it makes you feel good and it also makes you think "right what next " .. as a long term solution , maybe not , but as a sense of worth and getting back on the ladder I don't see how it would cause despair

Ps

Is this the first time on VT history where something the church has said has been seen as right ? :winkold:

[peterms]

I know it's been a couple of weeks, but that is basically the exact prescription advocated by Billy Mitchell (of billyblog fame, which you so approvingly link to; indeed he goes so far as to say that his spending proposals only work in concert with the job guarantee): the replacement of jobless benefits with minimum wage jobs doing work for public benefit.

No, I don't think so.

The JG is proposed as a means of avoiding anything other than frictional unemployment, in order to avoid the impact of unemployment being anything like as great as now. The proposal is to create a right to employment at minimum wage, either full or part time according to individual choice, and with some choice about the work undertaken.

There's an extract below from a longer piece here which briefly summarises these points, and the full link, and related pages, goes into more detail.

What do we mean by the right to work? Those who wish to do so should be able to obtain paid full-time (or fractional) employment. This guarantee should be made by the State and it should be legally enforceable in much the same way as other rights. Should it be any work as designated by the State? No, those exercising their right to work should be given options as to the type of employment they wish to take up. What wage rates should they be paid? They should be paid minimum adult rates of pay and be accorded to same rights and conditions associated with full-time market employment (or pro rata) - holiday and sickness benefits, a safe workplace, protection against unfair dismissal. For how long should they be employed? For as long as they wish while satisfying the standard conditions of employment. Those exercising this right could regard guaranteed jobs as a temporary step towards higher paid employment in the market sector...

...The implications of a full employment policy are considerable. First, it would mean greater use of labour and capital resources, as mentioned the single most significant efficiency reform that could be implemented in Australia is the elimination of unemployment. The direct financial benefits to the economy would be enormous; as indicated, of the order of 10 per cent additional GDP every year. Second, it would mean fewer fluctuations in aggregate economic activity. By legislation the government would be forced to generate jobs for those who are made redundant by the private sector. Such a situation would offer greater certainty for investors in the private sector since investment decisions would be undertaken in an ongoing full employment economy. Third, the extent of exclusion, poverty and costs associated with unemployment will be significantly reduced. It would be a policy that facilitated social inclusion rather than social exclusion. Fourth, governments would have to approach other economic goals from a full employment context, not, as currently, assume a given rate of unemployment and attempt to stabilise prices or reduce the current account deficit at this unemployment rate. Full employment would be the default setting for policy. Fifth, employers would be forced to contemplate how to better utilise labour and how to raise labour productivity through investment in machinery, technology and training. There would no longer be the emphasis upon cost cutting, lower wages and static efficiency gains associated with surplus labour conditions.

Our government seems to be proposing no right to work but entitlement to benefits being dependent on undertaking short-term unpaid work which is being frankly discussed by ministers as a "sanction" to underpin their lie that unemployment is a result of individual choice rather than lack of demand. The philosophy is about as far removed as you can get from a right to work.

The JG also aims to inhibit employers from trying to use the existence of surplus labour as a means of exercising power over labour; again, our government's interest lies in the exact opposite.

[leviramsey]

Our government seems to be proposing no right to work but entitlement to benefits being dependent on undertaking short-term unpaid work which is being frankly discussed by ministers as a "sanction" to underpin their lie that unemployment is a result of individual choice rather than lack of demand. The philosophy is about as far removed as you can get from a right to work.

As discussed it is compensated: the jobless benefit (which doesn't exist in a job guarantee as it's not needed) is the compensation for doing a month of labour for the state. The end result is the same, ignoring the differences in motivation (or how it's being justified to one party's base).

[snowychap]

But you'd get paid after the fact with the jobless benefit (which wouldn't exist in a job guarantee system). There's no practical difference.

The level of the payment is a huge practical difference.

I also can't see how you can suggest that a short term (max four week), non-universal community placement scheme, part of the express purpose of which, and a basis for how some decisions will be made, is to weed out people in the shadow economy, is not practically different to a universal job guarantee scheme with paid employment for all.

To avoid disturbing the private sector wage structure and to ensure the JG is consistent with price stability, the JG wage rate should probably be set at the current legal minimum wage.

The proposal here (short term community tasks for a minimum of 30 hours to receive the basic benefit level) would work out (on a 30 hour week) to be just over £2 per hour when our NMW wage (for 21 plus) is £5.93 per hour.

[peterms]

Community service is a penal alternative to custody, not a means of helping unemployed people.

is it ... have you not ever helped out in your community out of a sense of well community , i know i have

Are you not aware of the scheme which for the last 30+ years has been entitled "community service", established as an alternative to custody, usually used as the last sentence in the tariff before custody? I think it's pretty clear I'm referring to that, not a much looser interpretation of the phrase; and the reason why they are similar is the element of compulsion, wholly distinct from volunteering.

And as Rowan Willams has said, it will drive people into a feeling of vulnerability and possibly despair.

I actually think the opposite ..doing something worthwhile no matter what I think can give you a sense of purpose

I'm easily the worlds worse DIY man but every now and then I'll have a stab at things , the sense of achievement once you complete a task is quite rewarding. A task that ordinarily i'd have had to pay someone to do , and i did it myself , and it didn't fall off the wall and take half the wallpaper with it .. it makes you feel good and it also makes you think "right what next " .. as a long term solution , maybe not , but as a sense of worth and getting back on the ladder I don't see how it would cause despair

Excellent! Pm me. I have a few things which need doing and which I just don't get round to. We'll both feel good.

Ps

Is this the first time on VT history where something the church has said has been seen as right ? :winkold:

As far as I'm concerned, almost certainly, though other opinions are available...

[peterms]

Our government seems to be proposing no right to work but entitlement to benefits being dependent on undertaking short-term unpaid work which is being frankly discussed by ministers as a "sanction" to underpin their lie that unemployment is a result of individual choice rather than lack of demand. The philosophy is about as far removed as you can get from a right to work.

As discussed it is compensated: the jobless benefit (which doesn't exist in a job guarantee as it's not needed) is the compensation for doing a month of labour for the state. The end result is the same, ignoring the differences in motivation (or how it's being justified to one party's base).

It seems you are taking one factor (that people would be required to do it) and ignoring all others (pay, conditions, philosophy, rights, choice, for example) in order to reach your conclusion.

[leviramsey]

The proposal here (short term community tasks for a minimum of 30 hours to receive the basic benefit level) would work out (on a 30 hour week) to be just over £2 per hour when our NMW wage (for 21 plus) is £5.93 per hour.

AIUI, though (and perhaps I misread the earlier posts), the benefit is for a much longer duration... on a discounted cash flow basis the compensation is probably above minimum wage.

[leviramsey]

It seems you are taking one factor (that people would be required to do it) and ignoring all others (pay, conditions, philosophy, rights, choice, for example) in order to reach your conclusion.

Philosophy/motivation is irrelevant.

You have an equal amount of choice in either case: work or don't get paid.

As far as conditions go, considering that the only implementations of the scheme extant (India and South Africa) basically boil down to hard labour, I'm not sure that there's a likely difference in conditions (and any difference is as likely to be one way as the other).

[snowychap]

The proposal here (short term community tasks for a minimum of 30 hours to receive the basic benefit level) would work out (on a 30 hour week) to be just over £2 per hour when our NMW wage (for 21 plus) is £5.93 per hour.

AIUI, though (and perhaps I misread the earlier posts), the benefit is for a much longer duration... on a discounted cash flow basis the compensation is probably above minimum wage.

Why stop at trying to defend the level of remuneration on a discounted cash flow basis? Why not get even more esoteric and throw in some opportunity costs, too?

Utterly bizarre.

[leviramsey]

The proposal here (short term community tasks for a minimum of 30 hours to receive the basic benefit level) would work out (on a 30 hour week) to be just over £2 per hour when our NMW wage (for 21 plus) is £5.93 per hour.

AIUI, though (and perhaps I misread the earlier posts), the benefit is for a much longer duration... on a discounted cash flow basis the compensation is probably above minimum wage.

Why stop at trying to defend the level of remuneration on a discounted cash flow basis? Why not get even more esoteric and throw in some opportunity costs, too?

Utterly bizarre.

On a non-discounted basis it almost certainly exceeds the minimum wage. I'm giving you that a hundred pounds two months from now is not a hundred pounds this week.

[peterms]

It seems you are taking one factor (that people would be required to do it) and ignoring all others (pay, conditions, philosophy, rights, choice, for example) in order to reach your conclusion.

Philosophy/motivation is irrelevant.

You have an equal amount of choice in either case: work or don't get paid.

No. You have for example a choice of how many hours, and some choice over what you do. You have a choice of how long you do it, the choice to drop out and drop back in (because it's a right, not a sanction). You have the wider choices that integration with proper skills training gives you. Because, and this point doesn't seem to be getting across, is that one approach is about right, empowerment and choice, and the other is about imposing what is conceived as a sanction against a group of people who are assumed not to want to work. The philosophy behind the scheme is very far from unimportant; on the contrary, it will inform the entire way it works.

As far as conditions go, considering that the only implementations of the scheme extant (India and South Africa) basically boil down to hard labour, I'm not sure that there's a likely difference in conditions (and any difference is as likely to be one way as the other).

Mitchell's proposals are that the scheme incorporates proper health and safety, employment rights, choice and so on. It is quite possible to think of a scheme being implemented by, say, Norman Tebbit, which lacks these features. But that would hardly discredit Mitchell's proposals.

In the case on India and SA, do you think the jobs on offer vary considerably from most jobs in those countries, and if so, in what respects?

[thetrees]

...they went on a spending spree that we just could not afford...

What 'spending spree' was that?

Mainly expansion of the public sector. How many jobs was it that they 'created'?

Chuck in a couple of wars and excessive health service expenditure and you are soon looking at billions down the drain.

The same 'spending spree' to which the Conservative party was committed pretty much pound for pound (until November '08), then?

Gotcha.

Sorry, I missed this.

I am not a spokesman for, nor allied to, the Conservative party, but did this commitment include keeping the bulging public sector that became clinically obese under the last government?

My original point was the fact that most left leaning thinkers on here (and as we all know, only left leaners are capable of thought :winkold: ) seem to have absolved Messrs Brown and Blair of any responsibility for the mess that the country is in.