Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

 

Labour are the mess. Who took us cap in hand to the IMF?  Who screwed the pooch so badly we ended up with a 3 day week? Mountains of rubbish in the street? Unions running the country?

 

Yep, Labour scum.

 

Oh dear it seems that Awol is having a tantrum here. Re the IMF explain how you actually justify your argument for the myth based on this IMF thing again? Maybe you can explain how your argument stands up against various evidence that litters the internet to dispel your somewhat blinkered view, especially when you look at social impact of policies and outside factors.

 

And really calling people scum? quite childish

 

Re: the IMF, it is not a myth it is historical fact. Colhint quoted the details after my post but maybe you are suggesting it just didn't happen? I think that's called the Sergei Lavrov / Comical Ali defence.

 

As for scum, my reference was to the Labour party not Labour voters, a distinction our more left wing posters often struggle to maintain. I stand by it though, Labour are lying, war mongering, criminal, mendacious scum.  My views on the incompetence of the current Tory party are a matter of record on this thread, but Labour are, imo, in a class of their own.

[drat01]

Labour are the mess. Who took us cap in hand to the IMF? Who screwed the pooch so badly we ended up with a 3 day week? Mountains of rubbish in the street? Unions running the country?

Yep, Labour scum.

Oh dear it seems that Awol is having a tantrum here. Re the IMF explain how you actually justify your argument for the myth based on this IMF thing again? Maybe you can explain how your argument stands up against various evidence that litters the internet to dispel your somewhat blinkered view, especially when you look at social impact of policies and outside factors.

And really calling people scum? quite childish

Re: the IMF, it is not a myth it is historical fact. Colhint quoted the details after my post but maybe you are suggesting it just didn't happen? I think that's called the Sergei Lavrov / Comical Ali defence.

As for scum, my reference was to the Labour party not Labour voters, a distinction our more left wing posters often struggle to maintain. I stand by it though, Labour are lying, war mongering, criminal, mendacious scum. My views on the incompetence of the current Tory party are a matter of record on this thread, but Labour are, imo, in a class of their own.

awol, again the idiocy of the abusive nature of your reply certainly dilutes any credibility you may have within your post.

You have missed the points re the myth comments so maybe a re-read of the thread especially how the context has gone.

And just to return to your comments re labour, i could not help but raise a smile as the first comment that i thought of was hypocrisy especially when you consider your comment re war mongering. Maybe your history books have never recorded armed conflicts that a tory gvmt have overseen?

[blandy]

As for scum, my reference was to the Labour party ...Labour are lying, war mongering, criminal, mendacious scum.  My views on the incompetence of the current Tory party are a matter of record on this thread, but Labour are, imo, in a class of their own.

You seem to have misspelt "All politicians" as "Labour" *, but otherwise, you've quoted Bill Hicks fairly well.

And party politics aside, this Gov't is without doubt the most inept, mess everything up, clueless, shameless, incompetent, idiotic, self serving bunch of clowns we've had the misfortune to be governed by.

Seriously, if they don't do something wrong out of conviction/dogma/ideology, they get it wrong out of sheer bumbling incompetence. They haven't got anything right at all.

edit. Labour when they last, first got in, got some things right - most of the stuff they did in the first couple of years needed doing - minimum wage, third world debt write off, BofE independence etc. After that they went all clueless too, and gradually became more and more remoced and deluded. This lot have done zero of national benefit at all. Nada.

*I do not support Labour

[markavfc40]

If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem?

 

 

If what is currently happening under this Tory led mob is anything to go by there are a lot of problems.

Waiting times for treatment increasing. Going to A and E and waiting hours to be seen. An increase in ambulance response times. The elderly being kept in hospital weeks longer than is necessary as social care provision not in place due to huge cuts in funding.

The NHS isn't free by the way. We all make a contribution towards it. It is also this countries finest achievement but under a Tory government that will soon cease to remain the case.

[peterms]

Corporate capture in pictures: Cabinet meets at Shell HQ.

 

 

[peterms]

How do you try to convey "statesmanship" when your subject is a jumped-up little weasel with no gravitas whatever?  Show him engaged in Meaningful Conversations With World Leaders.

 

But it's becoming a meme...

 

 

[Awol]

 

awol, again the idiocy of the abusive nature of your reply certainly dilutes any credibility you may have within your post.

Abusive where and to whom? Certainly not you and it was your post I was replying to. Please quote the abuse for me please so I can avoid any repeat.

 

 

You have missed the points re the myth comments so maybe a re-read of the thread especially how the context has gone.

No, unfortunately you think that if someone holds a different opinion to your own they have "missed the point". Labour's catastrophic record of economic stewardship is simply there and on record, not some myth. I'm certainly not going to spend hours explaining it all when it would just be ignored anyway.

 

And just to return to your comments re labour, i could not help but raise a smile as the first comment that i thought of was hypocrisy especially when you consider your comment re war mongering. Maybe your history books have never recorded armed conflicts that a tory gvmt have overseen?

I've got nothing at all against armed conflict when it is necessary, the issue imho was Labour taking the country to war against Iraq on a pack of bare faced lies. It was unforgivable and remains so while some of those involved are still active in the PLP. 

 

 

You seem to have misspelt "All politicians" as "Labour" *, but otherwise, you've quoted Bill Hicks fairly well.

And party politics aside, this Gov't is without doubt the most inept, mess everything up, clueless, shameless, incompetent, idiotic, self serving bunch of clowns we've had the misfortune to be governed by.

 

If I seem to have quoted Bill Hicks then it's by coincidence rather than plagiarism!  I agree this lot are inept and every other adjective you've thrown in, indeed they've never really managed to get in front of the ball whilst in office and the bedroom tax (although as Eames said a reduction in benefit is not actually a tax) is a disaster. 

 

All that said I still rate the last Labour government as worse: Blair for Iraq, hands down the worst foreign policy decision since WW2, and Brown for being a dribbling mong, who among other things cocked up changes in regulation so badly (FSA) that the banks were free to cause utter destruction and five years of recession.

 

The electorate are poorly served by their politicians and have been for a long time, but I'm in no doubt that had Brown been re-elected things would have turned out considerably worse than they are now.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Awol

[peterms]

...the bedroom tax (although as Eames said a reduction in benefit is not actually a tax)...

The reason it's referred to as a tax is that a charge is being levied on a certain group of people, and they have to pay this from whatever income they have. They were placed in accommodation deemed by their landlord as appropriate for their needs, and transfers of funding from one branch of government (DWP) to another (LAs) or agents acting for the state (HAs) covered the rent. The government has now decided that it will override the decision of the landlord about the appropriate size of accommodation (so much for localism) and require certain people (among whom the disabled are vastly overrepresented) but not others (pensioners, because they are more likely than most demographic groups to vote) to pay a charge if central government deems the accommodation to be too large for their immediate needs.

Reducing housing benefit is the mechanism by which this tax is brought about, and landlords are the implementation agents (because they are required to collect the tax), and courts the enforcement agents.

If it looks like a tax, acts like a tax, and has the effect of a tax, then hey, let's call it a tax. I appreciate the government don't like it and wish to name it something which they see as less damaging because it obscures their role (as when they renamed the Poll Tax the "Community Charge" and renamed rates "Council Tax"), but the rest of the world don't need to go along with their sanctimonious and deceitful spin.

 

... Brown for being a dribbling mong, who among other things cocked up changes in regulation so badly (FSA) that the banks were free to cause utter destruction and five years of recession.

Jon, I know you've read a fair bit about the banking crash from other stuff you've posted, so I can't understand why you keep banging this particular drum. Banking deregulation and loss of control over banking is a global phenomenon stretching back 30 years. The bigger factors are repeal of Glass-Steagall in the US and Thatcher's "big bang" in the UK. The demarcation of responsibilities between BoE and FSA is at best marginal in this. Neither the Treasury nor the BoE seemed to understand what was happening about the growth of private debt, the massive expansion of the (wholly unregulated) shadow banking sector, or any of the big factors which caused the crash. And it is for the Treasury and the BoE to understand, anticipate, and tackle these things, as they now belatedly recognise.

[MakemineVanilla]

I must say that I find the word 'scum' a bit unparliamentary, intemperate and totally inaccurate.

 

Such abuse always seems like an attempt by voters to distance themselves from the responsibility they bear for voting in any spiv who promises to give them what they want, which over the past few decades has been more stuff and tub-thumping nationalistic we-still-matter-in-the-world wars.

 

It works both ways of course and these days those greedy buggers who voted in Thatcher to convert other people's jobs into overtime for them, pretend they never voted for exactly that three times with Thatch, once for the same without the poll tax (Major) and then another three times, once Blair had promised them exactly the same, but with the mutually exclusive promise of Scandinavian standard social services and American-style low taxes.

 

No one was tricked into voting for these people, the electorate voted out of self-interest and blind greed and got exactly what they wanted, more stuff bought on easy credit, plus better schools and hospitals which were all going to be paid for by the magic of PPP.

 

The electorate voted in the foppish Eton boy Cameron the anodyne Clegg, and the deceptive Cable, out of self-interest, because they thought these people would only punish those the Daily Mail had decided were the worthy targets of cuts, and would keep paying them their tax credits and keep interest rates artificially low so they could keep buying the crap their dreams are made of.

 

The electorate are not idealists who have been somehow let down or deceived, they have got exactly the government they want: one which will make the promises they want to hear, tell them the flattering lies that make them feel virtuous, and then take all the blame when the consequences of those promises turn out to be not quite what they wanted.

 

And scum is definitely not the right epithet.

 

I think the electorate have a sleazy set of values which when tested in an election put sleazy politicians into power.

Edited March 6, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[colhint]

That can't be right Peter. Its not a tax on those principles. Otherwise any inflation which causes prices to go up, should be called a tax, as its a mechanism by which everyone in the country has to pay more.

[peterms]

That can't be right Peter. Its not a tax on those principles. Otherwise any inflation which causes prices to go up, should be called a tax, as its a mechanism by which everyone in the country has to pay more.

 

There's quite a few people who see inflation as a tax, when it is deliberately engineered by government as a means of reducing the value of debt.  Their objection is that it transfers resources from one group of people (savers) to another (borrowers) rather than to government, so they are using the term pretty loosely, though government does get more resources in the sense of reducing its future spending obligations in respect of its own debt.

 

I think I would see a tax as something which more directly transfers resources from people/organisations to government.  But I don't think something is only a tax when it is admitted to be such by government, and named as such by them.  I suppose that since the "stealth taxes" campaign was such a key part of the current government's propaganda when in opposition, they would in principle largely share that view, except of course when it applies to their own actions.

[meregreen]

As far as I'm aware, the current "bust" was caused by private debt ie the banks. Public finances were relatively robust and debt to GDP was better than the previous Tory Government had managed prior to Labours election in 1997. Doesn't quite fit the myth does it

 

No that's not true. The IMF reported a structural deficit of 5.2% Compared to US 3.3%, France 3% and Germany 1.1%

 

We were in a worse position than most of the major economies,

The average structural deficit for the last five year of the Labour Govt was 5.3% as opposed to the last five years of the previous Tory Govt of 5.8%. By November 2012 after 2 and a half years of this coalition it had increased to 68.5% A greater net increase than the whole 13 years of Labours tenure.

[mockingbird_franklin]

That can't be right Peter. Its not a tax on those principles. Otherwise any inflation which causes prices to go up, should be called a tax, as its a mechanism by which everyone in the country has to pay more.

Many would argue seeing Inflation as a hidden Tax is the right way to see it, especially inflation caused through the allowed increase in the money supply over the underlying wealth, i.e qualitative easing, fractional reserve banking, which encourages speculation, a major factor in inflation, It transfers wealth to those who get access to this extra money early in it's creation before the effects of it through inflation occur from those who often receive little (or even non) of it and much later on, after it's inflationary effects have been felt,

[markavfc40]

 

UKIP has overtaken them because there is a gap in the market for a protest party now the Lib Dems are governemt . In 12 months time on election day if the Tories have cut taxes and the economy continues to improve Farage will win **** all. They will win seats as MEPs literally no one cares enough to vote seriously.

 

 

Are the right wing nut jobs really that shallow that a tax cut, or the promise of one, will stop them putting an x alongside the extreme right wing nut jobs name.

As for those of us with morals and a social conscience then a tax cut isn't going to make up for the fact that the average person is far worse off now than they were in 2010. Most importantly though it isn't going to change the fact that the poorest and most vulnerable in society haven't just been hit the hardest in the pocket they have been hit again by having the public services they are most reliant on slashed. It is shameful how this Tory led mob have acted over the last 4 years.

Edited March 6, 2014 by markavfc40

[peterms]

Iain Duncan Smith's pet project hits the news again.

 

Landlord's arrears rise by £241,000 during direct payment pilot

 

 

 

A pilot of direct payments to 1,000 tenants led to a £241,000 rise in arrears rise, with an average debt of £130 per person, it has been revealed.

 

Kevin Dodd, chief executive of Wakefield and District Housing, unveiled the results of the 18-month scheme at the Chartered Institute of Housing South East Conference in Brighton this morning.

 

Of the 1,000 tenants in the pilot, 400 were taken off direct payments before the end of the scheme because they hit eight weeks of arrears, he said.

 

Of the remaining 600, only 300 elected to continue with direct payments at the end of the pilot.

 

The landlord’s rent arrears rose by £241,000 across the 1,000 tenants included in the scheme, delegates were told.

 

‘The welfare reform agenda is passporting costs over to housing associations to absorb,’ he said.

 

Wakefield and District Housing is running one of six projects to test the direct payment of universal credit to tenants. The policy aims to encourage people to take responsibility for their finances.

 

Direct payment pilots are also taking place in London, the west midlands, the south of England, Scotland and Wales.

 

The pilot schemes ran from June 2012, and were extended by six months to November 2013.

 

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: ‘Direct payments are an important part of universal credit to make it easier for people to move into work, but we’ve been clear from the outset that we will take steps to ensure vulnerable people are protected.

 

‘This is exactly why we ran the Demonstration Projects to help us put the right protection in place for both tenants and landlords, and why the findings have been so very useful.’

 

 

So that's for 1,000 tenants.  There's a couple of million HA homes in the UK.  Is it about two thirds of tenants are on benefits of some kind?  Let's call it half.  So if that result for the pilot of 1,000 were repeated for (let's say) 1m tenancies, then the growth in arrears would be approaching £250m.  That's over 17 months.  Presumably it would continue to grow until loads more people were evicted, at which point they either get picked up as priority homeless and rehoused in far more expensive temporary accommodation, or else they - well, what?  They can't buy.  They can't rent privately, as private landlords are increasingly turning away claimants. also because of concerns about Universal Credit.

 

You have to hand it to IDS.  When you thought he'd plumbed the depths of arrogant and unfeeling stupidity, he outdoes himself again.

 

[Risso]

Jon, I know you've read a fair bit about the banking crash from other stuff you've posted, so I can't understand why you keep banging this particular drum. Banking deregulation and loss of control over banking is a global phenomenon stretching back 30 years. The bigger factors are repeal of Glass-Steagall in the US and Thatcher's "big bang" in the UK. The demarcation of responsibilities between BoE and FSA is at best marginal in this. Neither the Treasury nor the BoE seemed to understand what was happening about the growth of private debt, the massive expansion of the (wholly unregulated) shadow banking sector, or any of the big factors which caused the crash. And it is for the Treasury and the BoE to understand, anticipate, and tackle these things, as they now belatedly recognise.

 

 

It was Gordon Brown who insisted that the BoE use a definition of inflation that excluded house prices, and average house prices went up £100,000 for the period Labour were in power. 

[thetrees]

 

 

UKIP has overtaken them because there is a gap in the market for a protest party now the Lib Dems are governemt . In 12 months time on election day if the Tories have cut taxes and the economy continues to improve Farage will win **** all. They will win seats as MEPs literally no one cares enough to vote seriously.

 

 

Are the right wing nut jobs really that shallow that a tax cut, or the promise of one, will stop them putting an x alongside the extreme right wing nut jobs name.

As for those of us with morals and a social conscience then a tax cut isn't going to make up for the fact that the average person is far worse half now than they were in 2010. Most importantly though it isn't going to change the fact that the poorest and most vulnerable in society haven't just been hit the hardest in the pocket they have been hit again by having the public services they are most reliant on slashed. It is shameful how this Tory led mob have acted over the last 4 years.

 

Mark, you appear to have this idea that only people on the left can have 'morals and a social conscience'

 

I would counter that there are plenty on the left who have no such emotions, and that some that you would deem are on the right do indeed possess such qualities as you describe them.

 

Morality is most definitely not the preserve of the left, regardless of what they would like us to believe.

[peterms]

 

Jon, I know you've read a fair bit about the banking crash from other stuff you've posted, so I can't understand why you keep banging this particular drum. Banking deregulation and loss of control over banking is a global phenomenon stretching back 30 years. The bigger factors are repeal of Glass-Steagall in the US and Thatcher's "big bang" in the UK. The demarcation of responsibilities between BoE and FSA is at best marginal in this. Neither the Treasury nor the BoE seemed to understand what was happening about the growth of private debt, the massive expansion of the (wholly unregulated) shadow banking sector, or any of the big factors which caused the crash. And it is for the Treasury and the BoE to understand, anticipate, and tackle these things, as they now belatedly recognise.

 

 

It was Gordon Brown who insisted that the BoE use a definition of inflation that excluded house prices, and average house prices went up £100,000 for the period Labour were in power. 

 

 

If you mean mortgage payments, the inflation target was set by Norman Lamont in 1992 as RPIX (RPI excluding mortgage repayments).  The incoming Labour Government maintained the use of RPIX for inflation targetting until 2003, when it switched to CPI, which also excludes mortgage payments.

 

RPI includes mortgage payments.  RPIX and CPI don't.  None of them include house prices.  House prices are increasing rapidly now, largely due to a deliberate undersupply.

 

But what has this to do with the point you quoted?

[snowychap]

Presumably it would continue to grow until loads more people were evicted, at which point they either get picked up as priority homeless and rehoused in far more expensive temporary accommodation...

Isn't there likely to be another byproduct from that, too?

Namely, that the nature of the tenancies held will then change from largely assured tenancies (or even secure ones) to starter tenancies and thereafter fixed term ones whether that be by rehousing evictees elsewhere in social housing (if they remain, or become again, eligible) or by having a completely new lot of tenants.

That's without going on to 'affordable rent' and some of the other details introduced by Schapps in the early days of this government.

Edited March 6, 2014 by snowychap

[Xann]

And party politics aside, this Gov't is without doubt the most inept, mess everything up, clueless, shameless, incompetent, idiotic, self serving bunch of clowns we've had the misfortune to be governed by.

Seriously, if they don't do something wrong out of conviction/dogma/ideology, they get it wrong out of sheer bumbling incompetence.

 

Whilst doing their best to muddy the waters - They really don't like their actions and the consequences of their actions being scrutinised.

 

Figures that used to be in the public domain are now unpublished. Requests for such info from citizens can be refused for being considered 'vexatious', even the press are having problems now...

 

 

Since then I have asked the department five more times for an explanation. While all my other questions have been answered, albeit halfheartedly, this one was not fudged or spun or mangled, but simply ignored. I've never encountered this before: a government department refusing even to acknowledge that a question has been asked. What should I conclude but that the answer is highly embarrassing?