Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

Disgraceful decision.

Indeed.

So now the rebels have in theory access to billions of petrodollars - what will they do with them? Buy weapons? Who from? Yes their friendly NATO allies. Corrupt as feck.

But I suppose the tories never claimed to have ethical foreign policies.

The red tie wearers seem to be have been quick to support the decision, too.

[Awol]

Why does the UK government now recognize the National Transitional Council as the Libyan government?

Hague reportedly said around March's meeting, "We recognize states rather than groups within states."

"Mr Hague, having said that we recognize states not groups, are you not doing this?"

"This is a 'unique' situation and we now view that group as the state so we are recognizing it as that."

Or words to that effect,

Fine, expel the representatives of the Ghaddafi regime (should have probably done it much earlier) but recognizing the NTC just so you can free up assets for them to have? I think it's extremely difficult (even more than it was before) to argue that this wasn't about taking sides in a civil war from the very beginning.

Because hilary told them to.

..Because we want the oil and preventing a Srebrenicia style massacre in Benghazi was something even the Arab League was calling for, so presented an excellent pre-text.

If the rebels were trying to overthrow an elected Government it would be trickier but they're not and Gaddafi is a stone cold terrorist bastard. The probem is that without the express permission of every nation from China to Bongobongoland NATO have bottled the task they set themselves of getting rid of him - and there has been opportunities to do so.

It's pathetic.

[Gringo]

I'd bet as an average tories are more selfish than non-tories.

sorry but that's nearly as baffling a statement as when my Hungarian Nan said to my wife "How can Tony be a non believer (in God) when he's such a kind and good person "

you just can't measure something like that , you've fallen into Drat Ideology trap which is frankly (with respect) complete bollocks

It's not their fault

[tonyh29]

It's not their fault

an interesting article titled " Studies show left wing people to be less tolerant and generous"

We can play these games all day

[Dale]

Thatcherism (witch) was all about the grabbing, me me me side of things and it clearly chimed with many tory voters, and they haven't gone away.

I'd bet as an average tories are more selfish than non-tories.

I'd say that statement was pretty accurate Pete. I am basing this on my own life experience and the blue boys and girls I have encountered. I'd say that's how many also view them and many of them also view themselves.

I also agree, at university I recognised that I was incredibly privileged to have grown up where I did, had the parents I had and end up where I was, surrounded by, I'd say, 80-90% white middle class children. The young Tory who we had a little hustings with, was of the opinion that it was all down to application, which although possibly true, is affected by the former. As a result wasn't keen on welfare state and extension of policies promoting social mobility, and yes he did wear colourful blazers.

[blandy]

I'd bet as an average tories are more selfish than non-tories.

sorry but that's nearly as baffling a statement as when my Hungarian Nan said to my wife "How can Tony be a non believer (in God) when he's such a kind and good person "

you just can't measure something like that...frankly (with respect) complete bollocks

Your Nan's statement is indeed baffling - I mean you - a kind and good person ! :wink:

But yeah, you can't measure it or prove it, or even apply a generalisation to a specific individual, but I'd genuinely stand by it. A party that has an ethos of essentially "help those who help themselves" (and that's being very kind to the nasty gets) will attract a higher percentage of selfish supporters than one (which started off with, but abandoned) an ethos of "help those who can't help themselves".

[leviramsey]

Tories call on David Brent to save the economy

Politics makes strange bedfellows; coalitions especially. In the 1970s the Liberals made a pact with socialists despite socialism being the antithesis of liberalism; in 2010 the coalition finds us in bed with Conservatives despite the Tories opposing liberalism for centuries.

Coalitions therefore require us to remind the voters how we differ from the parties with which we are aligned in government. This week a new report from the Conservative-leaning think tank Civitas reminds us of one crucial difference: the Tories have always opposed free trade.

Reviving British Manufacturing: Why? What? How? appears to be a throw-back to a former time, when the Tories banned wheat imports to protect the interests of their landed backers. Between fawning praise for Margaret Thatcher (“No one doubts Mrs Thatcher’s commitment to a market economy, [Er... Yes they do -- Ed] but she was no market fundamentalist and her pragmatic patriotism is often forgotten“) Civitas suggest that the UK should indulge in one of the most fundamental economic blind-alleys in the Handbook of Bad Government: protectionism.

The reason that Civitas cite for this bizarre and dangerous policy is the UK’s balance of trade deficit, which measures the net flow of payments for goods and services into/out of an economy. Civitas argues that “We already have a balance of payments problem… With the annual trade deficit in goods now at a new record of £97.2 billion… only radical Government action will prevent Britain’s permanent decline as an industrial society“.

In fact, they later admit that the real trade deficit is £46.2 billion, but that they are choosing to ignore the trade-surplus from services. This is an absurd confidence trick, which ignores the fact that the UK’s comparative advantage is in services (Yes, even financial services! – try to contain your disgust). This attempt to make us focus only on one part of the economy is risible: I suspect that if one ignored manufacturing and focussed solely on services one could argue that China is running a trade deficit; if so, the politburo do not appear too bothered.

Even accepting that there is a trade deficit, this does not matter. As Milton Friedman noted, £100 billion is only of use to foreigners because it enables them to buy £100 billion worth of British goods. The pounds themselves are useless to them: “they cannot eat them, wear them, or live in them. If they were willing simply to hold them, then the printing industry – printing [pounds] – would be a magnificent export industry… [that] would enable us all to have the good things in life provided nearly free by the” nations foolish enough to swap perfectly good goods and services for paper adorned with [the Queen’s] face."

In fact, many foreign nations seem quite prepared to do that, and worse: they then lend the money back to the UK. This has created twin problems: on the one hand, it enabled us to buy even more of the good things in life (such as the public services spending splurge from 2001 to 2010), but only by borrowing against our future and that of our children. Secondly, it kept our currency high and theirs low, thus making our exports less competitive and theirs more attractive, and so exacerbating the balance of trade problem.

The solution, one might therefore think, is to stop borrowing the money. If they can’t lend it to us, they will have to spend it in the UK, and so we will achieve equilibrium in our balance of trade (but with a weaker pound). However, if you are a Tory think tank, there is an alternative: protectionism.

“the Government should encourage an increase in manufacturing output by about £10 billion per year”, the report argues, (why not £11 billion? 12 billion? What’s so special about £10 billion?), but crucially, this should not be done through promoting exports (itself dodgy, but now is not the time), but by import substitution: “exporting is costly… in the short run … it will be much easier to focus on the home market and out-compete importers.”

Import substitution is economic madness: not even Labour recommends this sort of thing anymore. It completely ignores the Law of Comparative Advantage(aka. the Ricardian Law of Association) and indeed undermines the whole basis of trade, which is specialisation and the division of labour.

And what are the four industries that Civitas wants the UK to specialise in over the next few years? Where should we focus our efforts, expanding domestic supply by throwing up walls to prevent cheap foreign imports?

In a companion essay, Civitas cite four particular industries that might not strike the average reader as particularly promising: Paper; Glass; Steel and Motor Vehicles. Admittedly, we have some good companies operating in each of these industries, but the idea that Wernham–Hogg paper merchants will become engines of the British economy is hopelessly naive.

Add to this the suggestion that Britain should establish a “Ministry for Economic Growth, focused purely on reducing the trade deficit through increasing production” (where to begin with this one?) and a tacked-on side-swipe at the European Union and you have a classic piece of Tory wonkery.

[VILLAFC2000]

ader....!

[colhint]

awol's gonna love this

[RunRickyRun]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Labour commit to halve the deficit by 2014?

That would have led to cuts of around 20% as opposed to the 25% we are seeing in some areas now.

[VILLAFC2000]

The cuts proposed by Labour were not as damaging as the cuts from the Torries...!

[drat01]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Labour commit to halve the deficit by 2014?

That would have led to cuts of around 20% as opposed to the 25% we are seeing in some areas now.

On of the biggest deflection / myths etc that the Tory party and their supporters in the right wing media especially like to put out is that Labour object to the cuts because they would not have made any. That has never been the case and the argument is being proven from the awful figures we see following Gideon and Cameron's ideas that cuts that are too hard, too quick and targeted at the wrong elements will not create the growth levels needed. Labour and many other parties including the LibDem's before they took their 5 minutes of fame said that recovery would happen based on cuts that were less, targeted other areas than things like front line services and had an aim of deficit reduction over a longer period.

What we are seeing now is the BS that the Tory party spouted pre-election being blown apart and the reality that many predicted of idealogical led cuts that satisfy their paymasters and are not in the best interests of the country as a whole.

[VILLAFC2000]

The cuts are perfect for the tradiotional Torries which include Scameron and Gideon.

The Torries dont believe in a state system so its looking rosy from there point of views...!

[VILLAFC2000]

Cheers

[colhint]

why are you one?

[snowychap]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Labour commit to halve the deficit by 2014?

That would have led to cuts of around 20% as opposed to the 25% we are seeing in some areas now.

Cutting spending (and doing it on its own) is not the only option if looking to reduce a deficit.

[blandy]

Indeed snowy, and it's one of the worst things about what's going on. I do think cuts have been and are necessary, and I don't think "cutting" per se is "ideological" - as has been said all the parties said they'd cut, if they got in.

What I have a problem with is that the focus is almost entirely on cuts and that there should have been 4 things, broadly, in no particular order

1. Cuts to non essential areas of expenditure

2. Changing the balance in some aspects of life and society - by that I mean there were and are areas of gov't controlled operations that are in need of reform - an example is University funding - whether people agree about the extent of the changes to tuition fees, I think it's undeniable that with more and more people going to Uni there was a strong case (accepted by both labour and Tories) that tuition fees needed to rise. There are plenty of other areas, too. Some Quangos, some benefit abuse.

3. Banking reform - make the main contributors of the problem properly make amends, and stop it from being possible again.

4. Tax increases (targeted).

5 Investment in the things that will both last a long time, and adapt for the future - infrastructure like rail, buildings, Green energy, crumbling sewers, energy conservation, R&T, Engineering, Science...and a whole bunch of other stuff. things for which not only is a return gained for the nation, but which keeps people in work, or creates jobs, or creates better skilled people.

6. tax evasion and avoidance reform.

What's actually happened is they've done lots of cutting, lots of trying to reform things to make them more Tory (opportunity for private companies to buy state assets on the cheap), they've targeted Tory/Right wing press hate entities immigration, the disabled etc. and done next to zilch on the other things.

There ought to have been a genuine national consensus building effort - explain, persuade, co-opt and so on, but they just leapt straight at their favourite subjects and ignored the rest.

Much of what they should have been doing is pretty much something they could have got agreement about from Labour, Lib Dem, Green, UKIP and worked something out together - a list, basically

And then got on with addressing the things on the list - it wouldn't have been all what Labour, or Green or whoever wanted, but it would have been on the way, on the path of what broadly is needed and it would have been a lot less divisive. You can't say "we're all in this together" and "Big Society" and then go and shaft more than half the country, sell off other bits to your mates and reward the tax dodging mega corps and expect anyone to think you're anything but a shower of removeds

[VILLAFC2000]

the deficit Accordiing to clegg was 180 Billion.

Tax evasion mosty from the rich in 200 Billion.

I think a lot of people can do that math...!

[peterms]

the deficit Accordiing to clegg was 180 Billion.

Tax evasion mosty from the rich in 200 Billion.

I think a lot of people can do that math...!

The entire premise is wrong.

A household deficit is bad.

A government deficit is not.

How shameful that not only our national debate, but the pronouncements of our elected leaders, don't understand this simple point.

[colhint]

the deficit Accordiing to clegg was 180 Billion.

Tax evasion mosty from the rich in 200 Billion.

I think a lot of people can do that math...!

According to the Guardian and the commons public accounts committee the tax evasion may be £8.5bn The TUC thinks it might be £12bn