Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

So Jeremy Hunt will now get the power to decide on Murdoch.

This is Jeremy Hunt who hates the BBC - the man who also said in 2010

Rupert Murdoch "has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person."

Cameron certainly likes to look after his paymasters and now it seems he can do quite happily.

Hunt shows how he could never be classed as impartial and is obviously a setup from Cameron

...like all good Conservatives Hunt is a cheerleader for Rupert Murdoch's contribution to the health of British television....

..would it matter if Rupert Murdoch owned two TV news channels in Britain? "The important thing is not whether a particular owner owns another TV channel but to make sure you have a variety of owners with a variety of TV channels so that no one owner has a dominant position both commercially and politically.

"Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day.

"We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment."

Spoken like a true Thatcherite....

[Awol]

Ok Peter - and don't take this the wrong way - the possible solutions that UK can take unilaterally without massively damaging our economy are what?

Invest in public infrastructure. The rate and location of investment would need to be planned so as not to overheat various sectors, or else construction companies just put prices up........

Some good suggestions in there so that leads to the next logical question, how do we pay for all of this investment? Save money elsewhere through cutting other areas? Borrow more? 'Print' it? No changes to the tax system are going to bail us out of the current situation quickly enough to make any fundamental difference, imo.

[avfc89]

It is purely ideological

so I keep hearing from those that aren't too chuffed that the coalition isn't pursuing left-wing ideologically driven policies

though I suppose to be fair to Brown his massive tax and overspend into massive deficit was not ideological driven , it was greed driven, the greed to redistribute billions of poor taxpayers money to people like Fred Goodwin :winkold:

It isn't surprising anymore that you use the previous government to support any unfair plans made by the coalition, so predictable.

[tonyh29]

As is your whining :-)

But labour supporters moaning about Murdoch has to be the funniest thing I've ever seen

[KT3AVFC]

Probably the first thing that Vince Cable has said since last May that I have agreed with.

It's inevitable that he will go sooner rather than later and if Cameron was any sort of leader he'd already sacked him rather than allowing him to skulk around in the cabinet.

[drat01]

As is your whining :-)

But labour supporters moaning about Murdoch has to be the funniest thing I've ever seen

Oh Tony.

So I can safely assume that you are extremely happy with the views and the influence of Murdoch? You are happy with his donations in the forms of travel etc to the Tory party? Are you happy with Hunt, who is proven to be a supporter of Murdoch is now in charge of deciding if he can significantly increase his influence over British media?

The only defence of policy these days from the Tory party and its supporters is to try and deflect the attention to Labour.

[peterms]

Some good suggestions in there so that leads to the next logical question, how do we pay for all of this investment? Save money elsewhere through cutting other areas? Borrow more? 'Print' it? No changes to the tax system are going to bail us out of the current situation quickly enough to make any fundamental difference, imo.

Slight detour first. I would like to see some better appraisal of the cost of doing things vs not doing them. For example, when BAA and the govt look back over the Heathrow saga of the last week, it would be instructive to attempt to cost what losses have been incurred by whom. The costs will have fallen on airlines (some flights refunded but not rebooked, staff on duty while scheduled flights weren't happening, cost of hotels/food and so on. Some of these costs in turn will be covered by insurance, which will be more expensive next time round, as will travel insurance for all of us. Businesses will have lost money (some hotels may have made a bit more). Then there's reputational damage, some future travellers seeking to avoid Heathrow as a stopover so lost future income...not even looking at the impact on the people affected.

Against that, the cost of investing in better preparation will seem small. (The cost of spending £135 on more-accurate-than-the-Met weather reports from Piers Corbyn will look even better value). Thing is, the losses fall on a variety of people, where the cost of preparation would have been met by BAA, so from their point of view it may have looked a rational decision. From a wider perspective, it's not.

The same thing happens with departmental budgets, and some of the cuts now planned are only going through because we don't have a more sophisticated system of cost-benefit appraisal which could show up some of the downstream costs which the cuts will cause.

So my starting point is that more informed economic appraisal is something we should be aiming for, and this is likely to show that some things which appear unaffordable look that way only because the cost of not doing them is concealed. And if we recognise that some big costs will occur whether we do or don't do something, that might both shape our decision and also, to get round to the point of your question, identify whether it's reasonable to expect a contribution from some of the beneficiaries. In some cases, especially where investment in infrastructure will benefit some sectors or organisations, it would be reasonable to require a contribution.

Employment creation involves some costs, but is pretty cost-effective if you look at the offsetting savings from reduced welfare payments, increased tax (for those who see tax as a source of income rather than a demand management tool :winkold: ), and the multiplier effects of those newly employed people spending on more goods and services than they would have done while unemployed, with consequent benefits to a range of firms and others.

Training is less immediately cost-effective, in that you're probably paying firms to make it worthwhile providing the training, and maintaining welfare payments or equivalent. That's where identifying the costs of not doing it would be helpful. But there would be a cost.

Some extra cost to better financial regulation, though I would require those regulated to meet the full cost of all regulatory activities.

Investing in energy would have a significant cost, with many of the offsetting savings being either several years away, or captured by individuals. Here again, the question is whether we want to be at the mercy of rapidly rising energy prices in a few years, and if so, how we would then pay the massive costs of the economic disruption which would be caused. If you believe traditional sources of energy will cost more in future, it's a no-brainer.

So I would pay for it by a combination of reducing spending in some areas by taking people off the dole; increasing contributions from firms and individuals either as direct charges for benefits received, or via the tax system where a greater level of economic activity means more firms make profits and more individuals are working; increasing the public sector deficit; and not spending on things like the next round of bailing out the banks, letting them make losses and letting some of them go under.

For anyone who thinks, well that's all well and good, but there just isn't the capacity to find that money however cost-effective it sounds, I would ask this question. Looking at the diagram below, which I've posted before, and looking at the truly mindblowing amount of unexpected, unbudgetted money which could be found to fling at the banks, shown by those three big areas to the right (leaving aside the question of whether that was a sound decision or an act of criminal looting), where did that money come from? Can it be the case that it's possible to find such massive sums for some things that benefit shareholders and the already wealthy, but not to renew our infrastructure, train our people, create energy for the future?

You have only to look at the sums involved in bailing out the banks (don't forget they're not safe yet, it's not over) to realise that whether money can be made available is simply a political choice, not something which is impossible. The reason for the claim being made that the money can't be found for more socially worthwhile things is a lie, designed to obscure the political choices which the government is making. It would be nice to see her majesty's opposition explain this a little more clearly than they are doing at present.

[tonyh29]

As is your whining :-)

But labour supporters moaning about Murdoch has to be the funniest thing I've ever seen

Oh Tony.

So I can safely assume that you are extremely happy with the views and the influence of Murdoch? You are happy with his donations in the forms of travel etc to the Tory party? Are you happy with Hunt, who is proven to be a supporter of Murdoch is now in charge of deciding if he can significantly increase his influence over British media?

The only defence of policy these days from the Tory party and its supporters is to try and deflect the attention to Labour.

Were you happy when he was doing the same for Labour ? cause I don't recall any threads about it in here

[snowychap]

BBC News have just reported that the Torygraph have got recordings with three other Lib Dem ministers (including Steve Webb, the pensions minister).

I wonder what their game is?

[kidlewis]

Would it not be better to just say 'I'm waiting for Murdoch to die'. Him and maggie are pushing it to the end. Laws always seemed a better option to me.

[drat01]

Tim Farron Lib Dem president has just said on BBC news that it's not their fault its because people are not grown up, and its the London based media's fault, and we still have principles and we are not blindly following the Tory led policy, but we are!

Clegg is failing what is left of his party

Cameron "telling off" Cable, shows who is running the show

Like so many things with this Gvmt its a total mess.

[Jon]

It's a farce all right, but one I'm enjoying. Surely this "Coalition" is not going to last beyond May's result ....

The interesting thing willl be, what happens then? I don't think Red Ed is ready yet, I really don't. I think he'll need another 2 or 3 years at least in the role. Dave Milly may have been the better bet (for electoral success).

[blandy]

There's a lot of pms's post that I completely agree with, and it's largely the exact opposite of what's actually been done by the Gov't. To me what they seem to have done, mostly is "I don't like X, X costs this amount of money, get rid of it and we've helped cut the defecit" another thing they've done is "We spend this amount, currently on Y, next year we set the limit at 18 million less". There seems little more thought than that gone into it.

There are areas where they have thought about things, and these are the ones where they deserve some credit - Quangos, Benefits, Prisons for example. In these cases there's been more argument and discussion fro mall angles, which is a good thing. The difficulty I have is that the discussion has been mainly partisan. Labour papers oppose it, because it's , er, not a Labour idea. Tory ones oppose it because it's not right wing enough, or support it because it's not a Labour idea.

There's been less unbiased debate than we might have hoped for. Less explanation than we might want as voters.

There's a final part, which is outside what petere wrote, which is that for many things it's either not possible to do an accurate cost benefit analysis, or where cost should not be the issue. More a kind of "what sort of society and country do we ewant to be in the future, in 5, 10 20 years. Transport, global warming, defence, education etc.

In these areas, there's some principle - for example education free for everyone up to A levels, after that if you want to continue, you contribute towards the costs (with support). But mostly it requires thinking that is non party political.

If the Gov't can take this opportunity to remove some of the imbalances towards big business and shift things towards individual liberties (something Labour was extremely bad at) it will be a good thing.

[drat01]

Jon - its obvious that neither Clegg or Cameron were "ready" as many said before the election.

They will try their hardest to remain as an entity until the AV / PR vote and then it will seriously blow up. This whole thing has confirmed what many have suspected in that the Libdem part of the Gvmt have basically sold their principles and beliefs for a "company car" and that the Tory part of the Gvmt still very much hold to the very right wing policies that they claim to no longer represent.

There are bound to be more "revelations" and I suspect they will be from all parties. The Torygraph was not going to release the Cable thing, but it was "leaked" - again funny to hear them complain about leaks. The Tpry right wing will now get more vociferous knowing that they can bully Clegg and Cameron will try and deflect the topics away but will be happy for others to continue on that path.

Its a mess, a complete and utter mess. Policies are being rushed through to appease their own backers rather than looking at the long term implications. Policy that people were voted in are now completely forgotten. There will be more and more protectionism from this Gvmt to ensure that they cannot be challenged in any way, like we have seen in the changes they have proposed on number of MP's and length of Parliament.

[drat01]

There's been less unbiased debate than we might have hoped for. Less explanation than we might want as voters.

Pete - that is exactly the point that was being made about rushed through ideas based on core principles and ideology.

I disagree on the points that you have made about "good things" such as Quangos, prisons and benefits also. They have been attacked as easy targets with little, if any thought as to implications and alternatives. Good Gvmt may have done that, but this lot could not or / and would not because the whole idea set is based on deep rooted ideology, a lot of it sponsored by their "backers"

[blandy]

Thing is Ian, on benefits they did spend a lot of time looking into reforming them, same with Prisons. Quangos less so, but I'd argue that they are something that has just mushroomed as a way for politicians to not do their own jobs properly. Both Labour and Tories set them up for this purpose. Many have outlived their purpose and are/were just well paid cushy numbers for mostly useless beurocrats. Some are/were extremely important and useful and well run and do a good job, but there's no doubt that many were duplicating work done elsewhere, or doing the work that should be done by gov't (local or national). There's no accountability - you can't vote a quango out for doing daft things.

On the debate, unfortunately, because Libs are part of Gov't and Labour was fussing about their own leadership, and new people were put into new shadow roles there's been no good debate or reasoned argument and opposition to much of what has been decided. It's just been "you're still nasty" "you left a mess, and would have had to do the same/had planned to do the same".

The general mood seems to be "we accept that cuts are necessary" but there's no national consensus, no unity and the unfairness of letting the bankers and the very rich get away with things is preventing what is really needed to be done and accepted.

When they say "we're all in it together" they have to actually back that up, and they haven't. It's "we can't touch them, or they'll run away abroad". Not good enough. Call their bluff.

[snowychap]

If the Gov't can take this opportunity to remove some of the imbalances towards big business and shift things towards individual liberties (something Labour was extremely bad at) it will be a good thing.

Why would this government (or indeed any government) remove the imablance towards big business?

Perhaps this lot might do some things about individual liberties (though I think that, when push comes to shove, they are showing themselves to be not too different from the last lot either).

[tonyh29]

Jon - its obvious that neither Clegg or Cameron were "ready" as many said before the election.

oh purlease , VT was like Fritzl given the keys to a new basement after the first TV debate and how Clegg was PM in waiting

The thing with Cameron is he has made a few mistakes but has been man enough to admit he got it wrong and put itright , Your Outraged from Sheffield act looks kinda pointless really as everyone and his dog knows you aren't looking at anything objectively .. Blandy to his credit is at least trying to be objective .

This government has already made many positives steps , and tbf Clegg has played a part in that , he's put country before party and in the long run the country will thank him for it ..

I disagree with "not being in this together" brigade though .. too much focus on the upper 1 % of the population , who lets face it were always gonna find creative ways of avoiding any liability .. the "kinda wealthy" have been (or will be) hit with Child support , the 50p tax is still here , and school vouchers are also being stop for those above a certain income ... so yes for 99% of the population we ARE in it together

[tonyh29]

, a lot of it sponsored by their "backers"

these backers that previously backed the other mob ( and received contracts , peerages etc for their troubles ) , or are these backers a new breed of evil backers cloned in a factory somewhere near Esher ?

Policy that people were voted in are now completely forgotten

how did that European referendum go anyway , i must have been on holiday when we held it

[Jon]

This government has already made many positives steps , and tbf Clegg has played a part in that , he's put country before party and in the long run the country will thank him for it ...

That's one viewpoint, certainly.

Personally, I think he's put Clegg before Party, an entirely different thing.