Rewriting the rules
"Them fiscul rools" is not a phrase heard often down the "Dog and Duck". No matter. The rewriting of the rules flourished so often by Gordon Brown to prove his prudence will have a real impact on the man and woman in the pub or at the water-cooler.
It will make it easier for the government to justify not putting up our taxes in the year to come and almost inevitable that they'll have to rise after that.
No wonder an economist told David Cameron at a Tory economic summit yesterday that "the next election is the one to lose".
The rule that matters in this story is the one that places a self-imposed limit on the amount the government can borrow. This year it's sure to be broken because the flow of taxes into the Treasury's coffers is drying up and they have nothing saved for this very rainy day.
Ministers could hike taxes to deal with the problem. They could slash spending. They prefer, of course, to borrow more. Rewriting the rules will allow them to do just that.
They will, of course, argue that there's an economic case for not taking money out of people's pockets or cutting public spending at a difficult time. This will be countered by those who say it is the job of the Bank of England using interest rates to ensure that the economy's not too hot and not too cold but just right.
This news poses real questions for all the parties:
Are Labour prepared to keep borrowing regardless of the fact that one day we'll all have to pick up the tab? Or could Alastair Darling behave as former Chancellors Ken Clarke and Roy Jenkins did - putting up taxes because they believed it was the economically right thing to do at the obvious political cost?
Will the Tories now make the case for a potentially unpopular combination of tax rises and spending cuts rather than the vote garnering tax cuts and spending rises?
Can the Lib Dems plausibly criticise the government for behaving as if there's "a pot of gold" to pay for tax cuts whilst themselves promising to cut the overall tax burden?
These are changed times, interesting times, defining times.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~54~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
It seems that GB is running a scorched earth policy. Make sure that all of the tax hikes necessary to pay for his profligacy land just after the next election.
Labour realise they will face a bloodbath at the next election, their only hope is to ensure that the incoming government has such a mess to sort out that they will appear incompetent to the public. Labour can then crow from the opposition benches.
Ended boom and bust? More like hidden all of the skeletons until they fall out of the closet onto someone else.
Complain about this comment
The right thing to do would be to put up taxes. Politically unpopular for sure, but at least it wouldn't saddle us with massive debt in the future. On the plus side this government is doomed anyway, so they really don't need to try and bankrupt the country just to get votes.
If we are borrowing now - at the start of a slowdown (optimistic) or recession (pessimistic) - then, to misquote the 1997 slogan, things can only get worse.
Increasing the national debt will leave a mess for the Tories, and though Labour can probably score points when in opposition, they should remember that people have long memories and still remember what previous administrations did in the 60s and 70s.
Taking the right decisions now would at least salvage some credibility for Labour on economic issues in the years that lie ahead.
Complain about this comment
In reality, the fiscal rules pledge has been reached and beached a long time ago.
Through the medium of PFI, Gordon has been keeping spending off the balance sheet for now, but ultimately this will come back to bite us all.
For him to recently criticise banks for 'off balance sheet activities,' is the height of hypocrisy. If the opposition were more aware, they could have a field day with this.
Complain about this comment
No wonder an economist told David Cameron at a Tory economic summit yesterday that "the next election is the one to lose".
Seemingly the truest thing said ever.....Except if labour win the next one they have another five years to scorch the earth further and therefore the one after next will be the one to lose.
Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and say, "The sooner we start to clean the mess up the better."
Nick if this economist is openly saying this why the devil arent you juorno's challenging the government about this everytime you interveiw them. To quote Bill Clinton "Its the economy stupid"
Every question to any government person should be "Wheres the money coming from?" and keep asking until they throw themselves on thier swords.
Complain about this comment
@2 the right thing isnt to tax further the right thing is to do what every household in the land is doing. stop borrowing and stop spending.
That is the only way back to financial stability unless you want to carry on borrowing to pay for inflationary spending.
Complain about this comment
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone over the age of 40. Labour Governments always run out of our money.
Complain about this comment
Of course, if we were in the euro, the government wouldn't be allowed to borrow so much.
But, goodness, being in the euro and having a supra-national body making sure that a national government can't wreck a national economy (and thereby damage economies beyond our shores) would never do.
Complain about this comment
Borrowing is pretty much the only thing left on the plate.
What taxes will they increase? Income tax? Watch as the economic immigrants go to pastures new, and people start spending less - further increasing the prospect of a deep recession.
Companies? Watch them either move their tax base to somewhere like Ireland, or take their business to more tax-friendly companies, along with the jobs.
The rich? Watch as they sail off to more tax-friendly climates too.
As for cutting spending, normally I would agree - but where? Reduce pay rises further and see a massive round of strikes. Laying off people will have a similar detrimental effect on the economy as increasing incomes taxes.
A much-overdue efficiency drive could save billions, but it would take too long.
Borrowing is the only thing Labour can do without risking massive damage to an already faltering economy and reducing tax receipts still further.
Brown has sailed us into the Symplegades, with increased tax on one side and decreased public spending on the other, ready to sink us.
Complain about this comment
It seems like there is another way..
Just imagine a solution that wouldn't need the fiscal rules re-writing, a way to generate a lot more tax revenue without taking it from the pockets of hardworking families, taxing a luxury item that people can choose to consume rather than forced to, reducing crime, diminish the power of street gangs and reducing the amount of drunken behaviour in our towns.
So, how long before the government revise their stance and de-criminalise and tax cannabis?
Complain about this comment
The biggest single problem this or any other government has is a decreasing ability to manipulate the economy at grass roots level because such a high proportion of it is service industry based. Many people can adjust their expenditure by, for example, eating out less, taking a few cans home instead of going to the pub, insuring third party on the car and so on. These are trivial in themselves but, if enough people do it, the effect on the service sector can be dramatic. Government is powerless to do anything about this so their only route if they use the taxation option is direct taxes. That, I suggest, would be political suicide.
The increased borrowing route may not in the long run be a clever thing to do, but it is politically more acceptable. Not for the first time, they have a choice. Are they a responsible government determined to do the right thing or a political party determined to stay in office?
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown hasn't just re-written the rule book, if it ever existed, he is about to rip it up.
His grubby fingerprints are all over this latest announcement.
The next administration, likely to be Conservative, now has a mountain to climb and little option but to implement unpopular policies.
GB and his woeful, bungling cabinet make me sick. Go urgently!!
Complain about this comment
All I can say is that must be getting really tricky if Gordon has run out of room to move the goalposts and is having to contemplate changing the rules.
Complain about this comment
Brown has been burning our cash at a phenominal rate all through his miserable career - he is addicted to it.
He has used all his savings and housekeeping, he has used up our pension and other savings, he has stolen and sold our funiture, remortgaged our house, and now at rock bottom he is starting to think that the 'loan sharks' aren't really so bad - "just this once, just till payday".
But to anyone outside, it is clear that the solution does not lay in seeking ways of allowing him to feed his distructive habit, to ward off cold turkey for just a little longer.
The solution is to cut off his supply and make him face up to the fact he has a serious problem. For him to take a step back and hand the reigns to someone who can administer the 'tough love' that public spending needs, probably at great short term cost, but with a clear plan of where it will bring us in five to ten years time.
He was always the wrong man for the job - blairs greatest contribution to this country was to keep the lid on brown, his greatest betrayal to hand it over to him.
The UK has the people, skills, energy, enthusiasm, dynamism and creativity to be great (it always has had), we just need the road block known as 'the labour party' out of the way so we can create wealth, flourish and deliver prosperity to all through individual endeavour.
Complain about this comment
#7 - yes there are borrowing rules for the Euro.
these are the same rules the French and Germans have broken on a regular basis.
It is however their ball, and they will take it and go home if they don't get their way.
If you want financial probity, don't look to an organisation which is so corrupt its accounts have never been signed off.
Complain about this comment
Its a bit rich of posters to accuse Journalists of giving the Government an easy ride. Almost every article is negative and seems designed to aid the Opposition. By contrast Cameron and Osborne are allowed to make critical comments blaming all of our ills on Gordon Brown and ignoring external problems. Wheneer either politician is asked what he would do the answer is evasive and unconvincing but goes unchallenged. Cameron has alawys received this treatment starting with questions about his past drug-taking. had it been Kinnock it would have been in the papers for weeks but darling Dave was able to smile and give a brush-off answer which was unquestioningly acepted.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you must be working to a different definition of the word "rule" than I am. Gordon's economic "rules" were relegated to the level of "aspiration" many years ago.
Personally I'm pretty optimistic about recession possibilies - I work for a canned food manufacturer and everyone's got to eat, there's no-one else to do my job and thanks to ten years of crappy government I've just about worked my way back up to zero after university.
I've come to accept the fact that (even as a graduate) I'll never be able to afford my own home or pension, but it's going to be fun watching the people who created this situation running around panicking.
Complain about this comment
Yesterday's newspaper showed the photo of the bloated, over-fed face of the Mayor of Moscow's wife who bought the most expensive house in London. She should be taxed to the hilt here, together with all our ex-dom peers, such as Lord Ashcroft, who remarkably is not Nu-Labour, but a so-called Tory. All the parasites who manipulate Goverment, Stock Exchange and our daily life, should be subjected to Brown's cruel taxation. This should not be reserved for decent-living UK citizens who have no ex-dom bolt-holes.
Complain about this comment
Frank_Castle
I agree with everything you say. An awful lot of much-needed taxpayers have already moved out of the UK and there will be more to follow if their earnings and pensions are worth less in real terms as time goes on. This money won't be replaced easily, as more and more people are made redundant and claim benefit which will be a further drain on the public purse.
I don't think more borrowing is the answer but without reducing spending, it is the only thing left on the plate, as you say.
The Government should have implemented a massive efficiency drive three or four years ago, but I still don't think that would have generated nearly enough money as things stand at the moment. We really are between a rock and a hard place and another two years of this will see us well and truly sunk.
I have a friend who has emigrated to Greece, and their equivalent of council tax, energy, petrol and water is a fraction of what we pay here. She has to pay for her dental treatment but even privately, it is still noticeably less than we pay through the NHS. It really does open one's eyes to the total and utter mismanagement of this country over the last 11 years.
Complain about this comment
Another tactics over strategy moment from Gordon. His only hope is to do the right things, however painful and win some respect. Flinging his own golden rule to the winds will lose him the last vestiges of his reputation for prudence. The Govt can then be easily branded as typical tax and spend Labour and the Tories won't let the electorate forget who got the country in this mess, right or wrong.
He just can't seem to make a good decision at the moment. It's like a slow motion car crash.
Complain about this comment
Phoenixarisen
The thing is, that a lot of our MP's probably fit into that category. They can vote themselves what they like, and there are plenty of loopholes, of which Joe Public are blissfully unaware, to be exploited, too.
Complain about this comment
The politics of this is easy. As the Tories say, it is the final nail in the coffin of Browns supposed economic competence. He will no longer be able to cry 'black hole' to any other party. No economic credibility left.
The economics is much harder. More borrowing is inevitable but a responsible government would now look very hard at its own spending. I think the public would understand if government spending was reduced given the economic position. No chance of that from Brown of course. The Tories are still too scared to talk about this course of action although they will no doubt try to do it when in power. Much to my great surprise, Mr Clegg seems to be the only one to even mention reduced spending (although without going inti any specifics!).
A mess that will take a long time to srt out in any case!
Complain about this comment
My advice would be the same to anyone who is spending more than they're earning....stop spending so much.
Borrowing more is not the answer.
Complain about this comment
#20
Shellingout you are so right. The so-called "John Lewis" List could be accompanied by another list, "The Fiddlers List" which would embrace MPs of all parties, and politicians from both Houses. This is probably the one subject most of them agree on, how best to screw Joe Public.
Complain about this comment
I think that Gordon Brown has done a fantastic job for the United Kingdom over the last 10 years as Chancellor and PM. We should all be proud of what he has achieved. History will judge him as one of the greatest politicians of the last 100 years.
Complain about this comment
Only joking!!
Complain about this comment
Phoenixarisen
I have often wondered if, when debating subjects like taxation, the chancellor and his board first discusses whether or not they will be adversely affected, before making a decision which affects the rest of us, but that's just me being cynical.
Complain about this comment
skynine
I was wondering what you were on, until I saw your #25 comment!
Complain about this comment
Re-writing the rules finally blows away any pretence of 'prudence' or responsible management of our economy.
Having squandered the good years, Labour is now in melt-down and is grasping at any straw to try and buy itself more time.
This proves once again that Labour can not be trusted with the economy when the going gets tough.
I agree with #1 maas101 that Labour is now pursuing a 'scorched earth' policy. By plunging this country deeper into debt, they are creating serious problems for the next government - just as they did in 1979. Brown doesn't care because he knows he won't have to pick up the bill.
Complain about this comment
The Government is staring into the abyss. Although I admit I don't like the Labour Party and its leader I take no pleasure at all in this. Borrowing more is a problem for the future. Taxing more affects our citizens now. Spending less affects our citizens now. Any option is painful.
But the starting point today is a much higher tax burden than in our history and much higher spending. This surely points to spending cuts as the primary move forwad. Borrowing more really does shore up problems for the future and would be cowardly and expensive.
The Government will have to identify specific areas for spending cuts. In addition it will have to revise downwards the spending budget for each department across the board. For example if each department had its 2008/2009 budget (and future ones) cut by 2% that woud save around £12 billion per annum to be supplemented by further cuts in specific areas.
Tough choices but the Government say they are in the business of tough choices. Its about time politicians did more to justify their existence and being honest about the tough choices and making and implementing them would help. And actually leading the country by making them and seeing them through regardless of complaints or strikes.
Complain about this comment
26 sellingout
It's impossible not to be cynical. However, I think the chancellor is so arrogant, and not frightfully bright. Therefore, with the rest of his brutish cabinet, he has enough animal cunning (excuse the insult to animals) to make sure his ass is covered.
Complain about this comment
Compare Gordon Brown to Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont and John Major. There is only one Chancellor who managed ten years of growth and it certainly wasn't Lawson who abolished motgage tax relief and organised the election winning boom also known as Thatcher's Economic Miracle. Major took us into the ERM at the wrong rate and Lamont ran about like a headless chicken, accompanied by his adviser Dave Camoron, a man noted for guiding his boss away from the drainhole during his televised statement. Clarke was better than Lawson or Lamont because he was free of the dogma of Thatcherism and Professor Walters. But he didn't have tme to produce a stable economy after the mess he inherited from Lamont. Brown was the best by far.
Complain about this comment
I think throwing away rule of a self-imposed limit on the amount the government can borrow is madness.
It could all work out if the economy picks up in say 12 months.
But if not then Brown will have mitigated a free-fall in support temporarily. In the long run he has lost the last vestiges of credibility.
Even if the economy does pick up he still has a zillion other problems.
Quite quite doomed.
Complain about this comment
It really had not occurred to me before that a 'technique' used by companies to make it unpleasant for them to be taken over, namely, the 'poison pill' could also be used by an incumbent Government to make life very difficult for the people who, by default, fill their shoes.
But patently, that is now a very real possibility.
Goodness knows how this economic carnage will be resolved in 2010, given that the Tories will be in power at Westminster, the Scots, via the SNP referendum, will be off doing their own thing, with the Welsh in hot pursuit.
One of the sobering facts about politicians is that they love spending other peoples money.
That is why this poster gets a bit hot-under-the-collar when they proclaim that they are 'accountable'.
They are only really accountable when they are directly responsible for the tax-payers money that they spend i.e. if it is wasted, there should be a personal comeback on the politicians involved i.e. made bankrupt if necessary.
If that sort of regime were in place, fiscal responsibility would change overnight.
I have to say, being of a certain age, it does always seem to end up like this with Labour in charge.
Tories bad, Labour worse.
What a choice.
Vote independent!
Complain about this comment
The only responsible course of action for the government now is to cut its spending.
Tax increases are politically impossible and borrowing has a serious political downside.
Now why can't the government grasp the nettle about public spending?
Easy question to answer: their only remaining supporters are to be found amongst the recipients of public doles.
If Brown does a Seventies on us then he will create another Thatcher to follow him.
Complain about this comment
18: "I have a friend who has emigrated to Greece, and their equivalent of council tax, energy, petrol and water is a fraction of what we pay here. She has to pay for her dental treatment but even privately, it is still noticeably less than we pay through the NHS. It really does open one's eyes to the total and utter mismanagement of this country over the last 11 years."
no it doesnt, it opens one eyes to the fact that the men and women of greece are paid less than us, and hence our money is worth more there than here. fool.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
LOST £14 BILLION ON TAX CREDITS! This is what we know about how much more has been lost? Unheard of tax recites coming into the treasury from oil revinue, more in tax revenue than any other Government. GB has had more money to play with than any other Chancellor/Priminister and yet there is no money in the pot. If any other CEO run his business the same way he may have received a golden handshake but he would have been shown the door at the same time. GB knows his days are numbered so he will make it as dificult as possible for the incoming Tory government to do anything positive. It's 1979 all over again it will take 10-15 years to put right then just as it is all coming together you jurnos will get fed up with a Tory government and tell us it's time for change. Next time I hpe you remember what change we got the last time. A grining idiot who will only ever be remembered for taking us into several wars of which at least one was illegal. With a wife that done nothing but freeload and leach of anyone and every one. Who's chancellor impoverished us all through stealth taxes (we will not increase the income tax burden) destroyed the best pension funds in the EU, while the boss retired after a not so successful decade in power to multi millions of pounds worth of deals. ALL NICE AND COSY THEN.
Complain about this comment
@31
Gb didnt make a stable economy either. He lived off Ken Clarkes legacy and a global period of sustained growth, he failed to save during those times and now we are faced with him via darling borrowing more to sustain his overextravagant spending.
If it was your family budget what would you do....Borrow more,treat yourself to that new car or curtail spending!
Complain about this comment
So now Gordon?s pimping out Prudence
Complain about this comment
moderate progressive
My friend sold her house in the UK to live in Greece. It wasn't a mansion either - just a normal 3 bedroomed semi.
She bought a house in Greece for a quarter of what she sold her house here for and she works out there. It's still much cheaper to live there than living here and she has a very nice life. Who's the fool then?
Complain about this comment
Nick, I'd be interested to get your views on my article over at Comment Is Free, taking you to task for your contention on the news last night and this morning that the government only has TWO choices, borrowing or taxing. Glad to see you appear to have figured out the third choice now - but what WERE you thinking?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/18/bbc.television
Complain about this comment
I think many of you are being unfair... Its not poor Gordons fault.
The blame can only be laid at the feet of the last Tory Government - who left the economy is such a shabby state.... err over 11 years ago. I am sure that GB can spew out hundreds of statistics to prove the point
Now let us try and guess who will be the first NuLabor spokesperson to use this defence.
Complain about this comment
Number 31
I think that you have taken the advice at Number 9 a little too readily.
GB has presided over an Enron style house of cards. If he did what he did in a public or private company, the police would be fingering his collar.
Complain about this comment
@31, billatbasing
Might want to get your facts right.
When Major got the reins in 1990 inflation was over 11% and growth was at -1.5%, by 1997 inflation was reduced 2.6% and growth was at 3.5%
This is actually the best economic record of any PM since the war. Black Wednesday may overshadowed that, but the facts and figures are unarguable.
By the time Labour got to power, the economy had had 5 years of consecutive growth and inherited a surging economy, whilst the world was entering what is now called the NICE decade.
Brown was given success on a plate, and to his credit he continued that success very well. Although that legacy is being tarnished by his failures to save cash and gold sale.
You want to compare him to Lamont? Well, now's the time - Lamont turned the British economy around from recession to growth at a difficult time. Let us see if the Brown/Darling team can manage the same.
Complain about this comment
I'm still baffled as to how anyone in this country still thinks that Brown was even a competent Chancellor let alone any kind of financial genius.All he's ever been capable of is inventing yet more taxes and wasting the money.The 10p tax fiasco would suggest he lacks basic intelligence,let alone has any kind of financial acumen,the man's a total disaster.His "economic boom" was a credit-fuelled bubble,as false as he is.
I'm a factory worker,after financial problems several years ago I don't borrow money,I don't buy what I can't afford.This means I'm solvent and I have a few quid put by in case things go wrong.That's not financial wizardry it's common sense,something sadly lacking in our great leader...oh and I don't bite my fingernails either.
Complain about this comment
'Brown ... destroyed the best pensions system in Europe'.
So often we see that written and it is repeated today on the thread.
Unfortunately, from my understanding of it, this is yet again, an example of the law of unintended consequences.
It is true that Brown removed the tax credits that pension funds could reclaim on their investments, which has had the effect of sucking some 50 billion pounds out of pensions since.
Now, accordingly to those stunning bright people at the Treasury (the elite of OxBridge), that removal of the tax credits would be compensated for by the Government simultaneously reducing the rate of Corporation Tax, thus allowing companies to pump more money into dividends.
Which would cancel out the loss of the tax credit to the pension funds.
Has'nt quite worked out that way, has it?
What those people in Whitehall simply do not seem to get is that company profits are extremely volatile and you simply cannot rely on dividends being increased year-on-year.
Nevermind, the Treasury bods are sitting on gold-plated index-linked pensions, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Yet again, no meaningful accountability for a bad mistake.
Complain about this comment
40:
good for her. what i said was, of course greece is cheaper to live - but its not a result of economic mismanagement, as your earlier posting stated
Complain about this comment
"You want to compare him to Lamont? Well, now's the time - Lamont turned the British economy around from recession to growth at a difficult time. Let us see if the Brown/Darling team can manage the same."
lamont burned billions of our money. he turned the economy round in a far better time for the UK than the current world economic state is now - oil and food prices werent quite so high if i recall correctly.
and, a deep recession tends to result in a period of growth and low inflation afterwards
Complain about this comment
45 DevonportDave
Good for you! You sound a really sensible, nice person. Wish you were the Chancellor, and ol' Whitehead could go off and chew the cud (or fingernails) with his mate.
Complain about this comment
#17 Lets look at the Mayor of Moscows finacial contribution to the UK. Buying a £50mil house is £2million in stamp duty. Even if she doesnt pay any tax when she is here what do you think she will do? - Spend millions on Bond St, expensive restaurants etc. Basically keeping a lot of retail workers/kitchen staff in employment and contributing millions more in VAT. If you tax her death she wont come here and the country will get nothing. Stop thinking Socialist all the time!
I want her here - what is your tax contribution to the public finances?
Complain about this comment
moderateprogressive
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. She saw the writing on the wall and moved because it was getting too expensive here - a direct result of government mismanagement. Read the other posts - I'm not on my own.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
51:
the last 6 to 12 months notwithstanding, we had the longest period of low inflation in living memory! as a result of mismanagement? despite high and condinued growth? i think not
Complain about this comment
Number 50
I don't think Non-Doms pay stamp duty, but agree that provided she spends lots of cash here is welcome.
Complain about this comment
50 LeveEUnow
I say, old chap, I'm absolutely horrified. I've been called many things in my life but never been accused of thinking like a Socialist.
Actually, my tax contribution to the public finances was typical middle of the road Joe Public. Unfortunately, I was forced to retire when it was discovered I was past my sell-by date, so now I just sit around, another Victor Meldrew.
Complain about this comment
re: 41 FrankFisher
Congratulations for getting that past the moderators; I mentioned the same thing under 36 but it got blocked.
I didn't mention/know-about the article you mentioned, but the logic in posting 36 was basically saying what that article that you mentioned seems to say.
Complain about this comment
@48, moderate progressive
Oil was near historically low prices then, indeed they plunged when Iraq agreed to missile inspections.
However, the economy was in a period of actual contraction, and inflation was significantly higher than now.
Back then was as difficult as it is today, albeit for different reasons.
As for your statement that growth and low inflation tends to follow a recession, that's true, but certainly not to the extent of 5 years of growth encompassing a 7% swing and an almost 8% drop in the rate of inflation.
Complain about this comment
53
Not screwing it up is not the same as getting it right.
Complain about this comment
#46 JohnConstable:
"Has'nt quite worked out that way, has it?"
Well it probably has, and that's why pension funds are now something like twice as big as they were then.
You probably know that it is all much more complicated than you make out, and that the main reasons for the demise of pension schemes are the increased longevity of pensioners, and the minimum/maximum funding requirement rules introduced by the Tories in the 90's. I went through some of this yesterday on here, and I'm not doing it again, but this story about Brown 'destroying' pensions is almost certainly nonsense.
Complain about this comment
moderateprogressive
It's not growing now, though, is it? It's falling away from us at an alarming rate.
If you think things are bad now, it's going to get much, much worse and we're the one's who will end up paying for it all.
Complain about this comment
jimbrant
"but this story about Brown 'destroying' pensions is almost certainly nonsense.
Tell that to my spouse!
Complain about this comment
58:
on the contrary, in this neo-liberalist age not getting it wrong is correct, focusing on supply-side policies like encouraging FDI and increases in the labour pool is the main government economic related activity.
57:
you are right, i was responding to the statement that it was a difficult time- my point was that now is more difficult now than back then, due to globalisation factors.
the economy was in a diffucult time due to the domestic factors, actions of the previous tory chancellors, particuarly the lawson boom, rather than global factors as the current problems are now.
Complain about this comment
# 59
Yes Jim, I deliberately simplified it because I think our posters do not want to know about arcane accounting rules (FRS17) etc.
And not so long ago, I read a whole article on under-performing pensions which did not mention Browns tax raid at all!
As you rightly say, increased longevity has played a big part, because actuaries mis-calculated that.
Pension fund managers have often produced very mediocre results too.
Luckily for me personally, I never partook of pensions, believing that the generous 'tax break' was not a good enough reason, amongst others, to participate and have made 'alternate' arrangements.
PS. I would not blame Gordon Brown for all the ills of the world, after all he has severe personal burdens, which any reasonable human would sympathise with.
Complain about this comment
Nick was right. GB only has 2 choices either / both of which are a slow death for his credibility and that of his government.
Cutting expenditure would be suicide.
Complain about this comment
So once again it will be the job of the Conservative Party to administer the foul tasting medicine to UK plc. All because Gordon Brown didn't follow his own prescription that was handed to him by the Conservatives in 1997. He did it for two years, and then ignored the wise doctors of the economy.
Complain about this comment
@18. - If you are going to compare how cheap prices are in Greece compared to here, then at least do it in context. The Greeks earn less than us, their state pensions and other benefits are lower than ours therefore what seems cheap to you actually isn't.
People do the same with Spain pointing out how property is cheaper, food, drink tobacco, clothes all cheaper but they don't take into account the acerage wage in Spain is only 7,800 pounds gross so living in Spain is not cheap if you are Spanish.
Even USA. Things are cheaper there, but their wages are an awful lot lower.
If you want to make these comparisons, adjust them to account for wage levels or they are meaningless rubbish
Complain about this comment
The title of the blog Rewriting the Rules, this Labour government has a track record of rewriting, amending , changing and u-turning to suit their political needs.
When a government is elected it sets out its policies, ambitions and aspirations and then continues to update via the Queens speech. What we are seeing is government on the hoof, policy change, taxation change , and now fiscal change all done without even taking to some of their own ministers.
If prudence was the in word when GB was chancellor, whats happened to the cushion I doubt there was ever one only spin spin spin. Lets hope Brown has the decency to call an election before we have another unelected leader from the Labour Party.
Labour is dead in the water led by the lame duck and dithering Gordon Brown, supported by an ineffective Cabinet frightened to say boo. Come on Charles Clarke make your voice heard.
Complain about this comment
While the 40% rule is entirely arbitrary, and the UK's level of public debt much lower than many similar economies, I hope that Darling will resist the obvious temptation to change the self-imposed controls. Since it's difficult to identify areas where savings of any significance could be made in the short-term (in spite of facile comments on here about Quangos and so on), I would support increased taxation. The obvious target would be tobacco and alcohol (with a possible exception for draught beer), which as well as raising revenue would possibly have a beneficial effect on health and society. I wonder how much the duty would have to go up to balance the books?
I am a drinker myself, but IMO it is much too cheap these days.
Complain about this comment
66: exactly. be prepared, though, for an irrelevant answer, which shows a lack of understanding of what you just said
Complain about this comment
68:
what would be interesting, is introducing a new higher tax band for high earners, as a temporary measure during this crisis. if the chancellor would pledge to remove it in say two or three years, then people would be unlikely to move away - the so called brain drain - because it wouldnt be worth the hassle. meanwhile, it would really put david cameron's compassionate conservatism in the spotlight
Complain about this comment
When you next get the chance to question Gordon Brown, as you no doubt will have in time, could you please ask him how on earth it is the 'right long term decision for the country' to be borrowing more money as a way out of a slump?
Complain about this comment
#61 shellingout:
"but this story about Brown 'destroying' pensions is almost certainly nonsense.
"Tell that to my spouse!"
No, you tell him/her - to look at what really happened, and not to believe everything in the press or Tory propaganda.
Complain about this comment
re: 66 Red Lenin
very true; the way to do it would be to live in a country which has cheap living costs but earn your money from a country/client that has high wages by working remotely somehow, eg via the internet.
Back to the good old days of the brain-drain of the 1970's; this is one of the reasons why setting tax levels too high is a bad idea; when it gets to a certain level everyone who can move will move, and then the government ends up with no uk-based businesses and no high earners, hey presto most of the tax revenue disappears in a whiff of smoke.
These days there's a very large number of people who can work remotely in that way, so increasing taxes too much is much more damaging now than it used to be.
Complain about this comment
#70 moderateprogressive :
Would it not also be wonderful if they increased the 40% rate a bit, but at the same time halved the prescription charge and removed the residential care charges for those with long-term health problems ? I do not ever want a return to Old Labour, but a bit of honest socialism would not go amiss!
Together we could deal with the present short-term revenue problem, and get a bit more equity into the system.
(BTW, I must declare a personal interest in at least one of my suggestions).
Complain about this comment
74: i completely agree. no-one wants a return to 83%, but a more progressive taxation system would be both morally and politically astute.
71:its a fairly widely accepted consensus, currently being put into effect in the US with their rebate checks, and has been for around 80 years.
Complain about this comment
@59 - I work in pensions and you're right. Mortality, distorted bond returns, reductions in annuity rates (gilt yields), changing funding requirements and volatility in the markets have all had a far greater impact. Removing the ability to re-claim the tax credit on dividends has had an impact but not the one the Tories would like to claim.
People often look for easy scape goats for things they do not understand or cannot control. The fact is that because of the above factors the old days of stable final salary schemes is gone.
BTW if you look at previous comments I've made I am no fan of GB.
Complain about this comment
If the reporting was more even, this country might have seen the reality of Britain as it now is, and Brown Bottle et al would be joining the increasing numbers in the job queue.
As it is, the Beeb appears to be doing a trade on licence fees for PR. As Frank Fisher at the Guardian rightly says, "The Beeb's role should be to ask questions, not to frame the issues in a way that preserves mainstream political power".
Can we please have someone who gives a less biased view?
Complain about this comment
@68
Do you by any chance drink draught beer? I can think of now other reason for why there should be a possible exception, surely alchohol is alcohol. And you may feel that the comments about quango's are facile, but they're accurate. While some do a worthwhile job, most are just micromanagement for micromanagement's sake
@9
Well that's the elephant in the room isn't it. An obvious new source of tax (and thus money) but no one wants to go their because they'll be crucified by the Daily Heil
Complain about this comment
Wow, I can post comments again!
Complain about this comment
"53. At 1:27pm on 18 Jul 2008, moderateprogressive wrote:
51:
the last 6 to 12 months notwithstanding, we had the longest period of low inflation in living memory! as a result of mismanagement? despite high and condinued growth? i think not"
Of course, our low inflation during the past decade had nothing to do with global conditions - unlike the present dire straits in which we find our economy, according to Bean.
Complain about this comment
Re #66 Red Lenin
& #73 getridofgordonnow
"the way to do it would be to live in a country which has cheap living costs but earn your money from a country/client that has high wages ..."
Cross-border commuting is actually commoner than you appear to think. Within the EU there's quite a lot between Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands in the places wherever there is a large conurbation near a border.
It's Switzerland where it's very common - especially around Basel, Lake Geneva, Lake Constance and in the Jura. The French even have their own word for it: frontalier.
Taxmen always find a way to share the take, of course.
Complain about this comment
"68. At 1:56pm on 18 Jul 2008, jimbrant wrote:
... Since it's difficult to identify areas where savings of any significance could be made in the short-term (in spite of facile comments on here about Quangos and so on)..."
Really, how do you know? I thought we employed Government ministers and civil servants to determine patterns of expenditure.
Complain about this comment
"the next election is the one to lose"
Yes, by us!
Cut spending, tighten belts, stop borrowing, live within your means. That will be me and you for some time to come.
Borrow, spend, tax, missmanage. That will be Clunker and Co until 2010 when they have no choice but to call an election.
But seeing as they are re-writing prudence and fiscal policy, don't be surprised if they find away of avoiding the next election under some pretense of 'National Emergency'!
Complain about this comment
Re #74 jimbrant
& #75 moderateprogressive
"no-one wants a return to 83%"
I agree with both of you that 40% shouldn't be an "absolute" ceiling, but get your facts straight, but one is needed. 50%, perhaps?
With the 15% unearned income surcharge, the top rate under the last "old" Labour government was 98%.
No surprise then that one of the few growth industries in the late '70s was tax accountancy!
Complain about this comment
80:
well no, of course the global economy was important, particuarly cheap goods from asia. brown benefitted from a prosperous economic environment - undoubtedly.
bank of england independance, allowing expert economists to ensure a close match between demand and supply, was also beneficial, as was the encouraging of increased labour supply, through the provision of child-care to single mothers, liberal immigration etc.
yes brown took credit that in truth wasnt 100% realistic - but would you really expect any politician to say no, actually, i had nothing to do with it, please elect the tories at the next election. would a man so truthful and decent and disdainful of spin as david cameron do differently? a man who claims he is green whilst having a car follow him to work? who goes to the arctic for a pretty photo-op, ignoring the damage caused by flying there? who wears four sets of a clothes at a party conference?
reminds me a little of the 1992 election where the tories won after a scare-campaign, promising no tax rises, and shortly afterwards increasing taxes
none of this, of course, changes the fact that current inflation is not home-grown.
Complain about this comment
@moderateprogressive and jimbrant
How about leaving us higher earners the hell alone?
I have spent the last 16 years investing my earnings into college and nightschool, I left school with no GCSE's graded over a D, bucked my ideas up at college and went through a succession of low-paid jobs before I got myself on the IT ladder and climbed it.
My reward for continually investing in myself and my future? Getting taxed more.
I haze zero problems in helping those who genuinely can't work, helping people gain qualifications to improve their lives, but I'm fed up at being a soft target because I had the temerity to become a success.
When I see some of the dealers on the local estates raking in cash from dodgy beer, fags and drugs whilst on the dole and with partners screwing the benefits systems every way they can, part funded by my taxes, I sometimes wonder why I bothered.
Really makes me bitter that.
Complain about this comment
#86 Frank_Castle
Is that draught bitter?
Complain about this comment
"Claim the credit for success / Pass the buck for failure." - that is what it is all about (as it ever was!)
The long line of continuous Tory governments since 1951 have progressively overseen the reduction of this country to near penury. Not that we were not bust after the war anyway - but at least we had a dream and that dream was the NHS - it may be flawed (and opposed by Churchill in 1951) but it is the best thing that has ever been done for the people of this country. It was not the product of middle of the road middle ground politics it was firmly Socialist.
Where are the principles now? In any of the Tory parties. It is all opportunism dressed up to look like conviction. 'Prudence' was doomed to die on the alter of free market economics. We used to talk of controlling the money supply - but we do not do so any longer etc. etc.
The holding of principled positions is a luxury that only a fringe party can hold, be it Green or BPN. What have we, the voters, done to politics to force the majority of our politicians to inhabit the grey middle ground? Why can't they stand for something any more?
Why is David Cameron totally unable to have any firm policy (other than not to have any firm policies!) Why is Gordon Brown scared of the Calvinist Scottish religion of his birth?
For the sake of the Nation please stand for something other than being prepared to do anything to get elected and board the gravy train- have some courage. Are they all mice?!!!!
Economics is an art - a slight of hand - a question more of confidence than of any particular figure. Every figure is capable of being fiddled! So be it 40% or 50% or 30% who cares so long as they fiddle things with the PFI/PPP etc.
Complain about this comment
#59 Jim - you think that the assertion that Brown destroyed pension schemes is almost certainly nonsense.
I think that qualification "almost" gives the game away. Just like the one you gave elsewhere when you said that, as far as you knew, Blair didn't parade the falsity of an Iraq/Al Qeada link (when he did).
In relation to pensions, the Government was warned about the financial consequences on pension schemes of the loss of the tax credi pension had, up to that time, enjoyed. Gordon swiped away the tax credit in 1997. The justification for the swiping of this money was that companies would make-up the deficit through paying in higher contributions, which in most cases has happened. However the cost of this was the loss of the final-salary scheme, and reduced pensions in other cases.
The advice to Gordon in 1997 was that the changes he was to implement was likely to reduce the assets of the pension providers, and thus the pensions they could pay. In the event of a loss of asset value, pensioners or companies would have to pay in more to get the same pension.
The relevant documents showing the afvice Gorndon received are published on HM Treasury website. "Abolition of Tax Credits, July 1997 Budget"
I'm sure you know most of this already. The trouble is, it's a bit inconvenient.
Complain about this comment
Many of us noted your tame reporting of this Government's position when, in respect of the economic slowdown and rumours of a change in the fiscal rules, your options went no further than tax increases or further borrowing.
I see that you have now aimed to cover your back by your most recent addendum of an option which should, rightly, have appeared in your earlier reporting by offering "...they could slash public spending". And about time too. Your reputation for objective reporting (whatever it may have been!) is diminished by this episode.
But I sense that even now, by your use of hyperbole, 'slash' (public spending), means that you offer this as an undesirable thing, therefore still leaving as 'best' options tax increases (unlikely - not up front, anyway), or what presumably would be Brown's preference (I ignore Darling) for an alteration to the fiscal rules to allow additional borrowing. Why do you say 'slash'? Why not the more objective and sensible 'reduce'? Why not 'make savings'? Do you really want Brown to sink us further up to our necks in hideous debt, and also, as things will stand, our children and our children's children? You give Brown too easy a ride.
Complain about this comment
#89 Apologies for the typos. It comes from hitting the submit button a shade too early!
Complain about this comment
re: 86 Frank-Castle
It's not just high earners who don't like the idea of high earners being treated as a soft target.
A lot of aspiring people on low/middle incomes don't like it either, because it's a barrier to stop you from wanting to better yourself.
People need to remember national insurance too, which means that it's more like well over 50% income tax in reality, not 40%.
When you get much above 50% income tax that's the point at which most people believe it's not worth the effort of putting in extra work because the relative gain for the amount of effort often isn't worth it unless you suddenly jump to a mega-level of money. Get to around 65% and that's when people start to physically leave the country.
I've never understood why someone earning more money should be taxed at a higher rate, because it's effectively a punishment for doing well for yourself; if you earn it you should pay the same rate as everyone else. You earned it, why should you be penalized for working hard? Not fair I say, and stifles entrepreneurship and effort and is generally counter productive in the long run.
I reckon they should raise the threshold (massively) at which anyone starts to pay tax, have a single income tax rate, get rid of national insurance completely, and generally make the state less bloated and more efficient - That's all perfectly do-able, it's just a case of working out the precise mathematics/logistics of it. It'd be infinitely fairer all round, would be easier admin-wise and so save a huge amount of money, and would encourage people to be productive and people would have an incentive to better themselves.
Mind you, the idea of people wanting to better themselves is totally against everything that labour stand for, so I can't see anything like that ever happening under labour.
Complain about this comment
What is jimbrant talking about?
How can the pensions problem only be down to an increase in longevity?
A tax credit was removed at a stroke from pensions funding. That's an unplanned, unfunded removal of cash from the pension system. By your ExChancellor.
Now we have the worst budget deficit since 1946 for the three months to June - an issue you seem to have little comment about other than to say percentages are arbitary. This is not low by relative standards it's the highest it's been for over sixty years.
We also have the second highest current account deficit in the European Union after Spain ... a country heading rapidly into recession.
You're always asking for evidence to support cases on these posts but you appear to be unwilling to address the rather compelling evidence against the alleged 'prudence' of your ex chancellor.
He was the most profligate chancellor since the war and it was money we patently didn't have an he is now having to borrow.
Complain about this comment
It might be hindsight, but I think that removing the tax credit for pensions was always going to have serious consequences for them.
Allowing companies to choose between make more profit or reinvesting the money into pensions was only ever going to end in one outcome.
Even when it was obvious what was happening, Brown refused to back down. Pensions were destroyed on his watch, as a consequence of his decisions.
Brown destroyed pensions.
Complain about this comment
#89 TerryNo2:
pensions - see #76 gottwald for what is probably a more informed view than mine.
You have to distinguish between major and minor influences, and short and long term effects, and look at the overall situation and not take single measures in isolation. I was aware of the advice you quote, and I don't think you give all of it. You also forget that it was the previous government that started the process, for very sound economic reasons. The tax concession was I think widely seen as a distorting economic influence.
al Quaeda/Saddam link - please give your evidence that Blair made such a claim. I'm not aware of it, and would be genuinely interested.
BTW, I said 'almost certainly' because I rather object to the unwarranted certainty that is often displayed here. Very few, if any, of us are real experts in the areas on which we comment, and I try (but often fail) to display a bit of humility in recognition of that fact.
Complain about this comment
This is another nail in Gordon Brown's reputation. All the Conservatives' accusations about how New Labour have failed to put money away in 'the times of plenty' are being proven right. I sense he's the kind of man who will care how he's judged by history. Well right now, I think he'll be placed well down the prime ministerial pecking order, a country mile behind other failuresthe like Neville Chamberlain.
Complain about this comment
Nice idea #73 - getridofgordonnow until you factor in the exchange rate. My pitance from the UK has remained steady this year but it buys 20% less now because of pressure on the pound.
Complain about this comment
Re #92 getridofgordonnow
I agree that there should be a limit and that about 50% is the point where problems of killing the golden goose starts. I also accept that NI contributions are effectively a myth and consolidating them with income tax as all PAYE systems already do makes sense. Sadly, no chancellor is yet brave enough to court the headlines it would produce in the red tops.
I really don't see why you think a single rate would make anything much simpler, as the vast majority is collected through PAYE nowadays and it's no big deal for a computer to calculate the amounts while keeping track of thresholds.
If you're a one-man band using PAYE tables to collect your own taxes manually on HMRC's behalf I do have some sympathy, having been there in the '80s, but that is relevant to a very few.
The only really good idea implemented during Brown's chancellorship was the 10% starting rate, which removed a negative barrier to going off benefit.
Rather than the crazy array of Tax Credits to which NuLabour are committed, that idea and the whole benefits system should have been (and still could be) consolidated into a single system using negative tax rates and so both collecting taxes and paying benefits and pensions at the same time. It's not rocket science, but arguably beyond HMRC's current IT people. Such a system could be as prograssive as our political overlords wished.
The whole point would be fairness to all and would ensure that everyone who earned an extra pound would get to keep some of it - essential if you wish people to come off benefits of their own accord.
Complain about this comment
#94 Wopitt:
I have said before that this is a complex area, but to ry to put it in simple terms:
1. The tax change didn't just encourage firms to make bigger profits, it encouraged them to put those profits into investment rather than dividends. This is I think widely seen as being a 'good thing' for the economy more generally, and therefore for pension schemes in the medium and long term. That is why the previous government had started the process themselves, and done about a third of the job (I think).
2. The tax change has been (IMO) a very minor element in the damage done to pensions, if it played any part at all except in the very short term. The major influences were increased longevity (especially), the effects of firms reducing the reserves in their pension schemes in accordance with government policy in the 90's, and the financial environment alluded to by gottwald at#76.
I think I saw somebody ask how changes in longevity could affect pension schemes. I would have thought it was obvious, but to give a simple explanation if a scheme was based on a pensioner retiring at 65 and then living to 74, it would arrange its finances to pay a pension for 9 years. If it turned out that the average pensioner actually lives until age 77, the pension would have to be paid for 12 years - a 33% increase in cost. That effect dwarfs the influence of any action by Brown.
Complain about this comment
"85. At 3:28pm on 18 Jul 2008, moderateprogressive wrote:
80:
"well no, of course the global economy was important, particuarly cheap goods from asia. brown benefitted from a prosperous economic environment - undoubtedly."
Fine.
"bank of england independance, allowing expert economists to ensure a close match between demand and supply, was also beneficial, as was the encouraging of increased labour supply, through the provision of child-care to single mothers, liberal immigration etc."
And, as a result of low interest rates, arguably artificially low, and lax regulatory conditions, individuals were encouraged to borrow to purchase property - in many cases, beyond their means. This inevitably lead to huge house price inflation, conveniently omitted from Government Price Indices.
"yes brown took credit that in truth wasnt 100% realistic - "
Good. We agree on this.
"but would you really expect any politician to say no, actually, i had nothing to do with it, please elect the tories at the next election. would a man so truthful and decent and disdainful of spin as david cameron do differently? a man who claims he is green whilst having a car follow him to work? who goes to the arctic for a pretty photo-op, ignoring the damage caused by flying there? who wears four sets of a clothes at a party conference?"
This mini-rant about Cameron seems irrelevant to the present discussion. Brown has been 'in charge' of Government finances fo 11+ years. I'll wait until Cameron is in power before deciding what he will or will not spin. Brown's actions, particularly on borrowing and off-balance sheet fiddles (for example, PFI and public sector pensions) have made a major contribution to the current situation where even more borrowing is needed.
"reminds me a little of the 1992 election where the tories won after a scare-campaign, promising no tax rises, and shortly afterwards increasing taxes"
NuLab would never do such a thing...
"none of this, of course, changes the fact that current inflation is not home-grown."
A rather sweeping statement. I don't know to what extent inflation is home grown, but, for example, I don't see how Council Tax inflation is anything but that (of course, it's a tax and therefore doesn't count in the calculations).
If the Government has to borrow more, one result is likely be higher inflation, partly as a consequence of a devalued currency.
Complain about this comment
Re #94 Wopitt
"It might be hindsight, but .....
Brown destroyed pensions."
No hindsight needed. It was pointed out loud and clear at the time, just as scrapping the 10% starting rate "coup" was challenged the same afternoon by the LibDems.
Brown didn't quite destroy them, but he certainly caused mass problems to us wrinklies with a knock-on effect to the younger generation.
What's really surprising to me is that anyone over 40 could have dreamt of voting NuLabour in 2001 or 2005 however feeble the alternatives may have looked. That's not going to happen again, I hope.
The next UK government will not be able to fix what Brown broke for a generation, if indeed the union survives long enough for there to be such a thing thanks to NuLabour's caghanded devolution.
Complain about this comment
One cant help noticing Brown has quietly dropped his favourite jibe about "boom and bust".
Under Brown we've gone from 'Tax and Spend' to 'Borrow and Waste'.
Now we read that the Unions who are payrolling Labour have a long list of 'demands' in return for their support...
Complain about this comment
100: well i can tell you that home-grown inflation is below the inflation target. however, im not sure about artificially low interest rates - set by an independant body - because for a sustained period of time inflation was below that target and interest rates were kept fairly high. mortgage relief was also ended by brown as chancellor, which of course does not encourage individuals to borrow.
you said:
"Of course, our low inflation during the past decade had nothing to do with global conditions - unlike the present dire straits in which we find our economy, according to Bean."
if you agree with my argument, then why did you say that in the first place?
Complain about this comment
I can remember when my pension statements started to show a rapid decline in the expected benefits, shortly after Gordon Browns first tax grab in 1997.
People living longer is certainly a contributing factor to the pensions situation but this didn't suddenly start happening in 1997 when New Labour came to power. So it seems unlikely it is the major driving force behind such a dramatic downturn in the expected benefits. I used to have to pay 3% of my salary to the pension fund, now I have to pay 8% just to prevent a further slide, and face the prospect of eventually having to work well past 65. This isn't a generalised point, this is what has happened to me.
None of this will affect the ever growing public sector pension schemes, where the gold plated retire at 60 schemes are funded for by the taxpayer come what may - seemingly unaffected by the same fact that people are living longer. Many of these are for politically correct useless non jobs, the occupants of which seem to form New Labours core vote.
If anyone really believes that the pensions situation is nothing to do with Gordon Brown then good for them. But I am not one of them.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't mind having a comment referred to the moderators, but do wonder why sometimes they just don't turn up at all.
Do you fellows have some key-words that automatically reject postings?
Complain about this comment
104# U1232354
I may be wrong burt arent "public sector" pensions paid for by the actual employees paying a hefty contribution from their wages into a fund which is invested to make more money etc, Contributions paid over about 40 years?
I never realised they were a "gift" from the taxpayer. Well blow me sideways, what you learn on here!
Complain about this comment
You've done it again!
Complaining comment gets through, but not the real thing.
Complain about this comment
What amazes me is the coincidence of the Economic catastrophe that appears to be affecting every modern mixed economy at the same time.
Every country experincing inflationary pressure.
All have a banking crisis/credit shortage
All have house prices dropping
All have higher fuel/food prices
All having diminishing tax returns because of above.
All have same interest rate/inflation/monetary supply dilema
All have same ranting opposition supporters blaming domestic governments.
By any measure this is some coincidence!
Complain about this comment
What's wrong with this site?
Does it only admit committed bloggers?
Complain about this comment
Re #104 U11714077
Very true.
I can also remember that shortly before the '97 election, Peter Lilley came up with some very sensible proposals to form the basis of an all-party consensus and protect both state and private pensions for the future. Rejected out of hand by NuLabour, of course.
I don't normally think much of any of the Tories, but that was very fair and arguably the best thing that happened in the Major government apart from Clarke's sensible chancellorship which sadly gave Brown the flying start he needed and, to be fair, used reasonably wisely in his first couple of years in the job.
Complain about this comment
As with party funding, expenses, illegal wars dodgy donations, arms sales Nu labour obeys rules only when they gain some advantage in doing so and then disregard any rules they find inconvenient
This is no different. They cant cut spending, Certainly wont be reducing their expenses and popular resistance to taxes prevents closing the gap this way
Therefore the only way to deal with it all is by borrowing
Complain about this comment
Re #105 fairlyopenmind
You're doubtless having problems with the system not being able to parse your text properly.
If you click the Post button and don't see your name as the last comment with awaiting moderation beneath it, look at the URL your browser is showing.
It will almost certainly contain:
dnaerrortype=XmlParseError
If it does, it means you've submitted some text - often a URL - which can't be turned into HTML by the built-in parser.
For example, if the URL contains an ampersand (&), you need to enter the HTML construct, which is &
Otherwise just give instructions on how to get to the page via a search engine.
Complain about this comment
106 Eatonrifle
All public sector salaries and associated costs are paid for the the tax payer.
Leaving to one side the non-jobs amongst them, the issue is that the "deductions" from public sector salaries are no where near the amount needed to pay their future pensions. Look at the descerpancy between public and private contribution rates and projected benefits.
I understand that the government runs pensions based on a cash system, so the pensions deductions of all current employees pays the pension liabilties due to pension benficiaries today.
If this is right, thenthe public sector pension time bomb will be paid for by our children from general taxation.
Better get breeding everyone.
Complain about this comment
#104 U11714077:
"People living longer is certainly a contributing factor to the pensions situation but this didn't suddenly start happening in 1997"
Of course not. The impact was not felt until actuaries realised that longevity was improving, and factored the projected figures into the future. This is still a problem . The Pensions Regulator has recently proposed that pension schemes should be even more conservative in their assumptions; apparently most currently assume that a person who reaches age 65 will live on average until 85, but the Regulator wants that assumption to be changed to 90. That will add £75bn to the liabilities of final salary schemes alone. (source -Reuters 5/3/08)
Complain about this comment
113#
Well it just shows that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing as other than Police and Fire service, Public sector pensions are "funded" schemes, Nurses, teachers councils, potato council quangos etc Employee contributions about 7,5% to 11% plus an employer contribution that varies acording to actuarial value. takes 40 years for full pension in most cases.
Does that seem unfair to you?
Complain about this comment
My father always told me to live within my means, and "neither a borrower or a lender be", years before I was ever in the position to support myself, but his admonishments in the literal sense fell on 'stoney ground' as from the 1960s forwards, higher purchase and other mechanisms of borrowing really took off right across the board for most members of society.
In the eighties the controls of borrowing were relaxed even further by HM Government to enable more and more people to obtain credit card status and purchase property on a mortgage. So why were these changes reversed from a generation or so earlier. Well it was something to do with balance of payments, reduction in productivity in comparison with our competitors and the need of the Government to quell disquiet at the actual lowering of our National wealth comparative to our European competitors. This aided the suppression of demands for increased salaries and wages, by enabling purchase based upon future employment, hence the credit. But borrowing has always to be paid back by someone.
We are now in a global downturn created by economic reactions to the combination of over-borrowing and over-supply, and the demand all Governments have for economic stability or they will lose power.
Today we learn of yet another HM Government 'wheeze' to circumvent the problems in the current account deficit, by altering the rules and hence the perception of what, and how much we are borrowing. This is a downturn and consequentially it is a period of hardship which cannot be avoided. Thus we needs must deal with the real underlying issues, not alter facts which tinker with the symptons.
This Government has had to borrow in order repair and modernise schools, transport, military, hospitals etc etc. Also conduct subtle stealth taxes, due to the dishonest climate in which much of politics is conducted, and the way each of us is selfish, wanting to preserve our own wealth at the cost to AN Other. Stupidly, they also, for misguided values of historical loyalty, threw billions down the pan in War.
Since we are here, and in debt, those with surplus are the only ones able to pay who won't be unduly hurt. We need reform all direct taxation for anomaly, reduce liability on the low paid, cut administratively expensive payments allowances/handouts, and increase direct taxation on those whose incomes are over £30,000; slowly, a penny in the pound here and there. Probably lower Corporation taxes, and increase some VAT. The Conservatives will have to when they come to power, and they will blame Labour; so lets start the recovery now and deal with the real issues. Cutting expenditure, which is modernising, Capitalising, is a false economy, which would have to be paid for later at higher rates anyhow!
Complain about this comment
#106 Eatonrifle:" arent "public sector" pensions paid for by the actual employees paying a hefty contribution from their wages "
As I understand it , the position varies within the public sector. In all cases there is a contribution from the employee and employer, but in some cases (eg the Civil Service scheme) that does not meet the full cost, and in all cases I think the employers' contributions are higher than you would get in the private sector.
For those where the scheme is not 'fully funded' the taxpayer does indeed pick up the bill for the difference.
The argument s that these relatively very good pension arrangements are offset by public sector wages and salaries being lower than their private sector comparators; the pension is seen as a form of deferred payment.
I don't expect everyone on this board to accept that argument, needless to say.
Complain about this comment
Woppit
Said
"All public sector salaries and associated costs are paid for the the tax payer. "
Who else would you expect to pay the;
Army
Navy
Airforce
Police
NHS
Fire service
Teachers
Other School staff
Social services
Road staff
Ambulance staff etc etc
If not the tax payer,
All the above pay taxes too!
Were you barred from such careers?
Complain about this comment
In addition to my 94, there are several others who deserve a (dis)honourable mention in the pantheon of shame surrounding the pensions fiasco.
1. The executives who tooks pensions contribuiton "holidays" when the stock market was booming. If they had continued to contribute at the same rate, I would think that many schemes would have been able to weather the storm.
2. The regulators who seem to have been blind to the fact that we were all living longer.
3. The pension trustees who were supposed to be looking after the interests of present and future beneficiaries.
I am sure that there were many others, but none of this detracts that it happened on GB's watch, and he did nothing but pour fuel on the fire.
Complain about this comment
115
It would be entirely fair if the contribution by the employer and the employee were sufficient to cover the future cost of the pension liability. Is it?
If you can answer that, then send your crystal ball to HMG quick. They need it.
The issue is that in final salary schemes the risk is shouldered by the gurantor - in this case the future tax payer. It were easy everyone would be doing it.
That is why the final salary schemes exist, the liability is all on the employee.
Complain about this comment
#119 Wopitt: "The executives who tooks pensions contribuiton "holidays" when the stock market was booming. If they had continued to contribute at the same rate, I would think that many schemes would have been able to weather the storm."
That is exactly, in part, what I have been trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to explain. The problem with your criticism of 'executives' is that this behaviour was required by law - well, either a contributon holiday or improved benefits, which had the same ultimate effect. I forget which Tory Chancellor introduced this short-sighted measure - Lawson or Lamont I think, but it certainly wasn't on Brown's watch. And of course the 'regulators', who in this case are the actuaries, and the trustees are both independent of government.
Complain about this comment
115# Woppit
The funded schemes have to be sufficient hence the actuarial valuation to determine employer contribution which has varied in the past down as low as 0%
As Jimbrant aluded too. if you take on a job with no possibillity of "bonus" payments, company car, prifit sharing, share options but you have a contributory pension after 40 years why is that wrong and more to the point why is it so begrudged?
The very people currently earning these pensions will probably carrying some of us to the toilet in a few years. Personally i have no qualms about their pensions. As I've said before you could always do the jobs yourself if they're so cushy.
Complain about this comment
#112 Brownedov
Thanks for the advice!
I don't send URLs, but may have included some odd characters. (Possibly some odd comments, too, but that is more subjective.)
Appreciate your response.
Complain about this comment
Let's be open about this stuff.
Net Government debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1997, even though inflation was relatively under control (similar to now) and we had a positive balance of trade (which hasn't happened in any year since 1997...).
Brown decided to follow Ken Clarke's financial plans for two years. To his credit, he did so - to the dismay of many Labour supporters and cabinet colleagues.
Net debt fell until 2001 - so a little longer than could have been previewed.
BUT government debt (i.e. debt incurred on behalf of tax-payers) has risen consistently from 2001-08.
Debt simply means the amount that one party commits absolutely to pay another party for services or goods.
However, many "commitments to pay" - i.e. debt - are not recognised in these figures.
There are over UKL190BILLION repayments scheduled as the result of PPP/PFI deals.
There are over UKL500BILLION promises to pay - debts - for public sector pensions.
(That's nothing against public employees in general. Just that we have to recognise that every highly paid member of yet another QANGO's management is going to cost our kids a lot of money, which is not even referred to in the government accounts on debt.)
The true exposure could be way above 60% of GDP - some commentators argue it is much higher than that.
This government has been unable to differentiate between investment and the cost of doing business. You sink money into the investment areas, in the hope or expectation that some longer term benefit will be produced.
You invest in R and D and capital projects. You can certainly make the point that education and training are part of R and D.
But increasing pay for any employee/staff member (whether a GP, hospital consultant, teacher, outreach officer or - in the private sector - a market trader or CEO) is not an investment, but just another cost of doing business.
The UK credit problem was home grown. For many years, people have borrowed more than the value of their assets (or ability to repay).
Brown could have introduced codes of conduct, or if necessary legislation, to prevent banks/building societies lending more than the value of a house. Had that been done, the market may have cooled - and people would not now be at risk of repossession.
This has been a credit-led economy. At some point, a bubble bursts!
I would in no way excuse the appalling lack of discipline by UK and overseas banks. If Joe Public bought a car with no wheels and a missing engine, he'd get little sympathy. But bankers paid themselves fortunes for gambling on assets which they didn't understand. (I have frequently said that bonuses should result in staggered payments. So that, if the apparent value for the company/shareholders was less after year one than it appeared to be at the time, the salesperson would receive less than expected. In other words, don't let a simple market-surge (which can sometimes be created) allow huge bonuses to be dished out when real value is much less.
Brown said that he would only borrow to invest. Well, where exactly are the government owned investments?
Not most new hospitals or schools. Most of those are from PPP/PFI funding. Not railways (after all, Railtrack is a not-for profit, hard to understand organisation whose investments are not on the governments books). Not in energy generation or home building (after all, when Brown announces a nuclear programme, all he means is that he wants to make it easy for private companies to build new plant. And 3 million new homes won't be built from government funds...)
I have great respect for people who work in real jobs in both public and private sectors. But inventing unproductive jobs never worked in either sector.
Brown has presided over an enormous increase in the rules and regulations that affect everybody. I doubt there is any individual in the UK who is aware of the existence of all those rules - let alone the details that apply.
So, if the government changes its own borrowing "rules" we have no say anyway.
Nor do our children or grandchildren.
The "Golden Rule" seems to have been breached for years.
Rules were always made to be broken.
But politicians should beware when their rules break the electorate.
Complain about this comment
@fairlyopenminded
There seems to be something erroneous in the whole comment processor.
I'm getting a 'profanity blocked' error despite having nothing that ought to trigger it!
Guess that massive overspend on the website missed a few things! :D
Complain about this comment
@92, getridofgordonnow
I agree with some of your points. A flat tax rate wouldn't be sustainable in the current set up, but it is certainly a laudable target.
Complain about this comment
#124 fairlyopenmind
Seems a sensible post to me - I'll wait for others to pick any holes in it.
Is it not also the case that all pensions (public and private) will be paid for by the economic activities of succeeding generations - either through taxation or share values?
Ignoring the temporary variations in the economy which always occur, it would seem that those of us who produced, raised (and paid for!) these future workers have created the real basis for our pensions. Those who didn't (a real tragedy for those who wanted children but couldn't) and chose not to, will be living off the economic activity of those that they did nothing to produce.
Complain about this comment
Re #123 fairlyopenmind
You're welcome. You should also note that if you do receive a parse error, you can press the Back button to get back to the text you submitted, at least if you're browsing with Internet Explorer.
If you need to use special characters, there's a good table of them at http://www.utexas.edu/learn/html/spchar.html
Type the HTML Entity, but they don't all work.
> < > <
Complain about this comment
Re #124 fairlyopenmind
I agree with oldnat that it's a good post.
I won't try to pick holes in it but just point out that "investment" was identified when first used as NuLabour newspeak for "government spending NuLabour approves of" and implies no differentiation between P&L and Balance Sheet, having been used in Parliament to refer both to teachers' salaries and hospital buildings. I applaud both when appropriate but having started professional life as a statistician and worked closely at times with accountants I do object to this meaningless use of the word.
I can now see better why you might have been having trouble with special characters. The parser doesn't seem to cupport currency symbols other than the $, so I tend to use Swift codes like GBP and EUR when needed. < and > have very special meaning in HTML, so if you need them use < and >.
Complain about this comment
#127 oldnat
I'm no expert, but I understand from a little involvement that private pension funds are measured against three key factors:
- the ability to continue to pay existing retirees at the contracted level;
- the ability to pay "deferred" pensioners (people who left a company before normal retirement age, but who will be paid at the agreed contractual rate) and
- the ability to pay existing staff members who are part of the pension scheme and whose future pension will have to be covered.
I believe it was in the Thatcher/Major era that some limits were imposed on the highest level to which a scheme should be funded. Seemed a little odd to me at the time, but hey, ho.
The biggest problem occurred when pension schemes seemed to be incredibly over-funded whe the dot-com bubble dragged virtually all the market upwards. So ncompanies suspended payments into the funds.
The stock market is not a reflection of "real" money - just expectation.
Had pension funds consolidated their apparent gains (i.e. sold shares, taken cash to sit in the bank, which would have had the extra value of cooling the market a little) then the impact of Brown's raid on dividend tax-relief would have been less severe.
I always felt that companies should have set aside the equivalent amount of pension fund investment during any year when they took a "pension holiday". In that way, they would either have a fund into which they could dip to build the business in future, or a source of investment to bolster any failing funds.
So not all a Brown problem.
My understanding is that, whether or not public servants and their employers pay significant sums into their future income, there is a significant element of all public pensions which has to come from year-on-year tax take.
I have no problem with good people being paid good salaries to do good/useful jobs which come with a decent pension.
I have enormous problems with any government (of whatever persuasion) creating so many very highly paid jobs which don't really address the public need, then guaranteeing high pensions. Why?
(Just as I find it amazing that company directors have pension schemes that do not mirror the conditions of their employees. Why? If they BUILT the business, maybe I could be tolerant. But for Joe Smuck to be brought in, devastate a company and be rewarded with a stupendous pension simply amazes me.)
I still haven't worked out how Brown's personal (private company) pension fund rules are supposed to apply. If Joe Private built a fund in excess of UKL1.5Million, there were supposed to be some tax implications. How does this work for public servants?
Getting away from the core issue of whether borrowing should be allowed to soar.
I wouldn't mind so much if State managed areas delivered decent outcomes.
BBC radio had an interesting programme within the last week, talking about the "Physics Olympics" - an international festival where A level equivalent students around the world compete.
A couple of long-term teachers stated that, while in the past the UK representatives could compete with their counterparts, today the students were roughly 1 year behind their opponents and needed intensive study to catch up. In other words, education in the UK has meant that teams which could have challenged for gold medals 20-30 years ago will now struggle to get close to the podium.
What that says to me is that educational standards have fallen. Not exactly what the A level results state!
And that is one of the key problems with this government. It pours money over a problems, but demands some statistical justification from its recipients, with no - absolutely NO - genuine value measurement.
Complain about this comment
Come on, don't accept that public sector pay for their pensions. Yes they pay a contribution but nowhere near enough to start funding the full cost. I would suggest that on current actuarial calculations total contributions must be in the region of 30 -40%. Most of the cost comes out of current expenditure and is a huge off balance sheet cost. A £trillion has been guesstimated as the current liability.
We then see politicians and their ilk getting massive pensions after a very short time. Judges do the same where the benefit far exceeds any contributions.
Current salaries in the public sector could not be considered to be lower than in the private sector for a comparable job.
Complain about this comment
I've worked 38 years as a a teacher and my pension is just over a thousand pounds a month because I had to retire 2 years early through ill health. Forgive me for not being 100% grateful.
Complain about this comment
#127 oldnat
I agree that there is an expectation that future generations or markets will build value into any pension scheme.
I worked for a large FTSE 100 company, whose pension fund valuation exceeded the market valuation of the organisation.
Seems odd. But maybe the fund had to operate within its own remit - to build and deliver value - with less direct and public competition.
I always bow to statisticians (Brownedov), with a little concern that the output is determined by the availability and accuracy of input.
This government seems to predict outcomes and manage the inputs as a prelude to creating the opportunity for any submission of evidence before making an assessment...
Having worked with/for publicly and privately owned organisations, I realise that this is not a novelty. But, in either sector it is a prelude to disaster.
But I have no
Complain about this comment
#130 fairlyopenmind
"A couple of long-term teachers stated that, while in the past the UK representatives could compete with their counterparts"
Not much of a scientific sample is it? Also, were these teachers representatives of the different education systems in the UK - or simply English?
There is no OECD PISA data for the UK in Scientific Literacy since the English data failed all the sampling rules, and showed significant bias at student level. Scotland and N Ireland provided good data (if England had a devolved administration, it might aspire to competence - an aspiration well above the UK administration that you have to suffer).
Scottish pupils' Scientific Literacy was 8th highest in the 2007 OECD table.
Complain about this comment
@117 and 118 I was in the forces for a full career. Although they don't pay direct contributions for their pensions, their pay awards are 'adjusted' to take into account their pension schemes, the fact that their work clothees are free, the fact that they aren't actually entitled to any days off and the fact that they don't get paid overtime.
Believe it or not, this is known as the 'x' factor.
It also explains why the pay for soldiers is so low compared to the conditions - ie in 'Derry in 1978 I worked 4 hours on, 4 hours off non-stop for 4 months and the off included eating sleeping getting dreesed/undressed. I got 50 pence a day extra. And grateful I was to.
Complain about this comment
we regularly hear from gordon brown "we are taking the tough decisions to steer us through the tough financial waters"
here is a classic "tough decision"
does he increase taxation, which would be a vote loser, but be good for the long term as regards helping curb inflation (ie, less money in the economy for the public to spend)
or does he take the easy popular way out, which may win some votes in the short term, but damages the economy for labour's gain in the long term, by increasing spending at a time when we are seeing big increases in inflation.
plus we have to pay the money back further down the line, with interest.
as usual he chooses the easy way out
Complain about this comment
I think that people who do not understand just how dire the situation is are like ostriches with their heads in the ground.
Any decent serious student of economics will actually have to look back to what was happening in 1928, not 1929, for the seeds of the impending serious financial melt down.
Financial markets were in tutmoil and the governments took action to avoid any collapse. The trouble was it was unsustainable. The day of total collapse could be avoided. Look up the history of a small Austrian Bank which went by the name of Credit Anstalt and the part they played! Why did it happen?
There was a serious problem over wheat production in 1927, so the farmers all over the world took the obvious action of planting more wheat, they borrowed money from the banks to meet these targets. Governments also helped by their central planning, they thought they had learnt from WWI, mass production, central control etc.
So in 1928 there was a glut and the price collapsed, but the banks wanted their money so they started to contract the money supply. All loans at some time have to pay repaid, the problem was that governments were still hugely in debt over WWI. They had relyed on the reparations agreed at Versailles.
Look at the Invergordon mutiny, the government knew that the game was up when even some ships of the Royal Navy mutinied, the Hood amongst them, and you know what happened to her!
So, I think that the mistakes of 1928 are about to be repeated, only it is not only wheat it is other foodstuffs, oil and other products. The game is up.
So, 1928 led to the final total collapse in 1929. History will repeat itself in 2009, 2008 is just a foretaste of what will follow, all that will be different will be the scale of collapse in the global economy, it will be much worse. The rats leaving the sinking ship will still have to face retribution. They will not be forgiven easily, the cry of revolution will fill the air only this time it will not be the nice cuddly people on the left it will be the fascist right.
Henry Ford was not right, history is not bunk. My problem is that I worked for many years in the City before studying economics and it is obvious that what students are being taught as economics is 'bunk' and these students will soon find out just how wrong some of the theories actually are. The model is well and truly broken!
Complain about this comment
Here we go again.............back to the Seventies.......high oil prices, stagflation, power hungry unions, Labour Gov't about to go on a borrow and spending spree...........All we need now to complete the act is a loan from the IMF and a blonde wig for Dave Cameron to come and sort this all out!!!!!!!! New Labour..........huh! History will show that it was a total con-trick!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
I haven't had time to read all of the posts, but shouldn't GB and AD have
"mended the roof while the sun shone?"
Complain about this comment
137 TAG
Thanks for the history lesson, and belive you know your facts. However history is the guide to where we have been and are coming from not where we are going.
In 1928 the world was a far different place, we are now as they say in a Global Village instant communication, global economy, and more importantly far more aware of each other situation.
People can make change happen but you have to have faith in your leaders and in the UK this appears to be wanting, so the silent majority have to exert them selves.
Would you still support the current cabinet?
Complain about this comment
140
I agree that in 1928 the world was different, but if we only look at the British Empire, which was essentially a trading empire, we suffered in the same way.
Agreed we have to exert ourselves as there is no leadership from the government. I'm happy to do so.
Where do you suggest we start?
Complain about this comment
141 Mikepko
I do belive the ball has started rolling, talk to non political friends and they are seeing the situation as it now is, the spin has been seen for what it a con trick it was.
Sustainable change has to come from the grass roots up, to make it workable not imposed from the top down.
You have to start to make your voice heard, and the big advantage we now have is the Internet . use it
Complain about this comment
#134 oldnat
I totally agree that the comments of a few teachers can in no way be representative.
They were portrayed on the programme as having been teaching physics for up to two decades (maybe more in one case) and with a long-term involvement in preparing students for the "Physics Olympics".
This was an English student team, selected from public and state schools.
My concern about education in general (as with other areas of public life) is the tendency of government to set a goal which must then be achieved at all costs.
If you predict that students will get better results, this can be achieved by "modifying" the questions posed, "adapting" how answers are marked and "adjusting" the level to be achieved for declared grades to deliver impressive results.
I'm sure that teaching methods can improve. Absolutely certain that young people can be encouraged, so that far more of them achieve their potential. But I don't see how the proportion of very clever can truly leap within a generation. Yet they should be the ones gaining A, Astar or First Class degrees. When the percentage awarded these levels surges, you have to question the basis of evaluation.
It sounds like "proving" that policy is working, rather than giving employers some real insight into the relative levels of academic ability of job applicants.
I stress that the academic is not necessarily the best measurement of suitability for a particular job.
I've worked with are some incredibly bright and competent people with few academic qualifications - and who hated the formal education environment. Also with people bristling with degrees who you wouldn't want to run a chicken coop... bright but not "appliers".
I get the impression that government is packed with examples of the latter and would prefer to see more of the former category!
Complain about this comment
138 Northern thatcherite, , Maybe your right maybe it was a con, we were after all conned into having the lowest sustained interest rates and inflation for a generation, we were conned into having more police,doctors and nurses than ever before, we were also conned into having infinately better hospitals, schools, than ever before they also .the devils, conned us into having a minimum wage, more genorous family allowance, maternity leave, and they even gave the pensioners a winter fuel allowance of £250 for under 80s and the over eightiess now get £400 it meant the lowest rate a rise of £240 from ten pounds pre 97 and they dont have to pray that if it does go below zero it will last fo a week otherwise they wont get their £10.
Oh! and of course they had to go and give them free TV licence and free bus passes.
Yes History will show what an evil bunch of no good'ers they were and how they took the country from those wonderful caring Tories and spent the money on the things that count instead of giving it to those that really needed it in tax relief the so called upper class.
Complain about this comment
Re: 144. Grandantidote. You give an exceptional list of Viv Nicholson style Spend Spend Spend programmes and commitments............the very things that have resulted in the Gov't taxing all of us, including the poorest 10 pence taxpayers, to the absolute hilt until we've got nothing more to give. Now that they've emptied our pockets they are about to embark on a Borrow, Borrow, Borrow pre-election fuelled spending spree landing us all with the debt to re-pay for years to come. Enough is enough. It's time to cut our cloth accordingly. Labour did exactly the same in the 1970's until the IMF brought them to heal before the ordinary hard-working people country were all made bankrupt! Quite simply Gov't should have saved some money for a rainy day and not allowed such a massive increase in expenditure over the last 10 years. The electorate have realised that the New Labour project has been a sham, a non-stop spending binge based on the falsehood that God Gordon can buck the economic cycle and deliver "stability"......... and they will deliver their verdict within the next 644 days. I predict as in 1979 it will be a positive vote for good-housekeeping, thrift, value for money and smaller Gov't.
Complain about this comment
The Golden Rule under Gordon Brown has turned into the Iron Pyrites rule of Alistair Darling. Welcome to the Fools' Gold government.
Borrowing now forecast at between 100bn and 150bn this year. Not only should they resign as a government they should resign their seats at Westminster as well.
Complain about this comment
145 Appropriate Name
And what within Grandantidodes list do you want to cut?
Simple question?
And is your post yet another case of massive exageration?
Your pockets are really empty are they? or is it that like the rest of the world things are not as good as the previous 10 years so you're having a good old moan?
"in 1979 ordinary working people were ALL made bankrupt"? Really slipped my mind that and strange as I was an ordinary working person in 1979?
The reactionary right wing ob here appear to have two main tactics NAME-CAllING first and if that fails EXAGERATE !
Complain about this comment
#144 grandantidote
I think most people would agree there have been some "good things" delivered by Labour.
Anything that helps the less well-off pensioner should be encouraged and applauded.
I thought that Brown's decision to introduce a 10p tax band was good, offering some relief to the poorest. Then he took it away.
Why? Because it benefited every tax payer, rather than the poorest and he prefers to have supplementary payments made to those who are genuinely in need.
Targeting the poor sounds OK in concept - but in reality it reflects a return to the poor-house mentality, where the struggling have to learn to become supplicants of the state.
For goodness sake, every tax is based on the consumer/tax-payer coughing up. Even corporate taxes - since, without the end-product being consumed by an end-user, there would be no corporate income to tax...
For me, the worst aspect of this government are:
1 Their assumption that the citizen "owes" the state. So any benefit offered, or tax-reduction - or tax-rise withheld - are a symbol of state beneficence. It's not. It's just the state not taking away as much money from the tax-payer.
They don't seem to realise that the apparatus of state is just a burden on ordinary people. There are several areas where the state appears to be the best custodian of service. But that doesn't mean that people want more and more highly paid people talking down to them.
2 The lack of business acumen. Brown and Blair frequently trumpeted the huge sums of money they have spent on various services.
Get real.
Spending money - especially other people's - is easy. Getting value for the spend is what we need. The hospital consultants told government negotiators that they did more than was recognised. GPs were offered the chance to buy-out of certain activities. What did Patronising Hewitt's department do? Just plough ahead and pay way over the odds. Dumb.
IT projects within government are a disaster zone. Yet they still plough ahead. Just how many of this government have any experience of involvement with the management of business? Hard to find them, isn't it?
But UKplc is all we have. We all need it to be fairly benign from a personal standpoint - but sharp as hell when it engages with commercial suppliers. Does anyone really believe that PPP/PFI projects will deliver the best return for tax-payers money?
GA - just recognise that the median wage is around GBP 22/23000. A single household with 60 p.c. of that (i.e. around GBP13,500) is considered to be in poverty.
So shouldn't tax-bands allow that amount of income before any tax is demanded?
And how on earth does a government (especially a Labour government) justify imposing the highest level of personal tax of someone earning - at most - 4 times the poverty level?
It's the simple unreal quality of their understanding that irritates.
That assumption that the citizen is only allowed to "be" because the state tolerates it. For goodness sake, we only tolerate the burden of state because we are overly tolerant of a bunch of folk who probably wouldn't have made it in the wealth producing world.
Complain about this comment
137# TAG
You paint a gloomy picture!
Howvere I'm not sure about your prediction of a revolution of "the Fascist Right" They'd heve to give up valueable blogging time on here and that would never do!
Complain about this comment
148~ said
"They don't seem to realise that the apparatus of state is just a burden on ordinary people. There are several areas where the state appears to be the best custodian of service. But that doesn't mean that people want more and more highly paid people talking down to them."
What people on here want is more and more low paid people (perhaps with no pension rights as that would cost the taxpayer too) to do the "public sector" jobs. A sort of under-class who should be grateful for a job at all.
AS for the right "custodian" well a Private (wealth generating so therefore GOOD) organisation was given the contract to mark SATS but it seems inneficiency lurks everywhere.
Complain about this comment
#148 fairly openmind
I think it important to differentiate between the failures of government and the failures of administration.
Civil Servants will screw up regardless of the Party in power - just as do the administrators in any large PLC. However, having politicians doing the negotiations with IT companies would be infinitely worse.
The larger the organisation, the more likely that incompetence will become institutionally embedded.
"But UKplc is all we have." - Actually it's not. The UK is becoming less centralised, as Scotland, Wales, and northern Ireland increasingly go our own ways.
I still find it incredible that so few English people are demanding their own government and administration - and simply replacing one lot of Brits with those in another party isn't going to help you.
Complain about this comment
I have no doubt that, logically, if the choice is between increased borrowing and increased taxation, then the latter is the only sensible way to go. It does strike me, however, that the people saying so publicly, in these days of soaring food and fuel prices, are people who can afford to pay the double-whammy! How are the poor supposed to cope? The rich can tighten their belts: the poor can no longer afford trousers!!
I do like the LibDem idea of makng the tax system fairer so that the poor no longer pay a greater proportion of their income to the Treasury than the rich. As for other areas of savings: the opportunity to negotiate realistic settlements for GPs and dentists is long gone, but how about a moratorium on messing with the structure of Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities? The last time was in 2006; the time before that was only 3 or 4 years earlier, and it must cost a fortune each time. Planning, consultation, assessment, re-recruitment, redundancy payments, reorganisation of premises, re-ordering of stationery with associated scrapping of the last lot . . .
Hopefully severe curtailment of the Second Home spending list for MPs will save a bunch of cash, as might limiting the expense claims of some of them.
And how about the firms which gained the contracts for checking SATs? The primary school teachers could have given equally good assessments (they had done for many decades, after al); and many small children fall to pieces when faced with external tests. Instead, not only are we paying for someone else to devise tests to assess our children: what they provide is at best inefficient, at worst downright fraudulent! Scrapping those, then, could save a bit more.
I'm confident that if we put our collective minds to it, we could put together a list of suggestions from here to the moon, enough of which would be workable to stop leaking cash out of what is after all our kitty, and even start putting a bit back in!
Complain about this comment
151# Old nat
Agree totally with you first three paras, made similar points myself about large organisations public or private will seem wastefull or inneficient.
Its a size thing rather than a Public/Private thing.
Complain about this comment
I agree, size can lead to economies of scale, but it can also lead to inefficiencies when applied to the wrong field.
Take schools for example. Which is more important in ensuring that our children get a better education: if schools are lumped together in a tiered managment system, or because they are staffed by intelligent, motivated teachers?
In partial answer to my own question, I suggest that administrative coalescing seems sensible when looking at purchasing and "back office" functions are considered. It would also seem completely redundant as a way of influencing educational standards.
Large scale is great for production line type activities where standardisation is the key to success, and the activtiy can be commoditised. The downside is the loss of flexibility where small scale is the key.
Commercial operations have to deal with this trade off every day. Growth in overheads occurs and then is periodically cut out when pressure is applied from outside in order to survive.
A similar way of building in an automatic self regulating process is need in the public sector. Such a system is unlikely to turn up any time soon. Therefore a radical programme to cut overheads is needed.
Where would I start? With the annual salary of £816,000 a year that the DG of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
My comments ref: 145 are not as ref: 147 makes out REACTIONARY or even RIGHTWING......they are just commonsense
Does reactionary rightwing constitute name-calling? Anyway,with regards to what to cut in Government. If public expenditure was frozen for 3 years this would force through REAL savings by eliminating waste and putting new projects on hold as is the case in the private sector at present. In otherwords it will create EFFICIENCY which the public sector lacks! If that means less doctors, less nurses, less teachers and less local government workers then so be it.
It's quite simply time to cutback on the size of Government to take the burden off the backs of the people and especially the poorest taxpayers. It's time to avoid building up more debts for the poorest to pay in the future and it's time to live within our means not at the expense of the future.
It is anethema to Labour to reduce the power of the state in favour of the people. The nanny state is creating a nation of dependent rather than independent people. This is Labours true goal as therein lies Robert Mugabe style votes from people entirely dependant on handouts from Gordon for their survival.
Smaller Goverment is all areas of our lives please!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Red Lenin
135
The "X Factor" was not just and adjustment based on the administrative elements of military service. It was primarily there as a way of acknowledging the 2 defining features of military service:
1. Submitting to military law
2. The "unlimited liability" of military service - that of being legally sent into a situation when you would be expected to risk your life for others.
The fact that these 2 elements were deemed to be balanced by the upsides of military service that you mention was, you understand, entirely conincidental.
I believe that the figure that was used as the "X Factor" was 6% until about 8 years ago when it was increased to something around 10%.
The fact that many of the supposed benefits of military service have been eroded since then, for example the reduced availabilty of housing, the increase in the cost of the sub-standard housing, the imposition of pay-as-you-dine etc is not particularly surprising. This is just one element of the Military Covenant that governments seem to have a tin ear for.
Complain about this comment
147 eatonrifle
I wouldn't criticise anyone too much for exagerating on here.
Without wishing to personalise the discussion but anyone reading your posts on this thread can observe that you yourself are not entirely adverse to the selective distortion, amplification and wilful misinterpretation of statements made by others!
Lots of your comments on here seem to be in response to things that were not actually said.
Complain about this comment
157# U12243
For example?
Complain about this comment
NorthernThatcherite@155
More vague talk about smaller government. less waste. like you know what you are talking about. Conservative is just a name. You could say it means to conserve or you could say it means Resistant to change and stuck in their ways.
Considering that you people are such experts on the Labour Government. I find it strange you can't talk about how your party would do any better. Smaller government greater efficiency doesn't cut it.
Conservatives might have cut spending in the past but so much that services were less efficient and ended up costing more in the end. Crumbling old hospitals, schools and poorly maintained railway infrastructure.
Short termism based tax cuts at around election time is what the Conservatives stand for.
Why not spread your wisdom around the pubs of the North? Teach them the error of their ways. See what happens. Don't forget to tell them you're a Thatcherite. I've got a feeling you would be more grateful of NHS spending at least if you did.
Complain about this comment
#150 Eatonrifle
Just nonsense. I am all in favour of the people performing real jobs in public service being paid decently - actualy I'd like there to be at least equality with private-sector pay levels - and gather good publicly funded pensions.
I don't like people being employed by the state (or local government) to do "nothing" jobs.
I tried to imply that in private companies there are often people hired to do what are really wasteful tasks. Bloody daft, but it happens. Many of those get engaged with stuff that delivers no real benefit. I'd like to see them weeded out, as well.
That's my problem with state-employment. If something is necessary, I'm happy to pay through taxes. If governments create new rules, regulations that they then employ people to manage, you have to ask whether the new rules were really necessary.
Since we now have a legal and regulatory framework which is three times as large as when New Labour came to power, do you really believe that the addition of people to manage all that garbage really delivers benefits to the tax-payer?
But, I and you have to pay for state funded jobs.
You raise the fact that Blair/Brown decided that the administration of SATs should be outsourced to ETS. It always seemed to me to be a dumb - really dumb - move.
But that was the decision of this Labour government, which doesn't understand business and how to manage contracts. Are you saying that the implementation of a gvernmentally contracated company somehow reflects on any other body than this government?
It seemed to me that, whether I felt SATS were a good idea or not, the existing management was fairly decent. So why did Blair/Brown out-source this to a private company? NOT even a UK company.
And why out-source "simple" surgical tasks to private companies, thereby depriving hospitals of a sensible source of income? I have no idea - but Blair/Brown decided that was a good idea.
Do you really think that was a great ploy?
#151 oldnat
I agree that it's hard for any organisation to manage detail.
But with some sort of management controls, the risks can be diminished.
Government ministers should be "managing" a neutral civil service.
Where did the "neutral" civil service go? Driven away by the Blair/Brown/Campbell insistence that public servants were really the slaves of the government-of-the-day.
We still have the UK. Devolution has been a largely mismanaged process.
Just wait until those parts of the USA which had absolutely nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence decide they would like more autonomy. That's right. Most of the current USA belonged to the French or Spain/Mexico (and a big bit to Russia) and had no part in the "revolution".
Just doesn't matter. All we should do is hold the current government to account.
Anyone out there who thinks that we get value for money when we (Brown/Blair - on our behalf) create more and more QANGOs and pay six-figure salaries (with tax-payer supported pensions) to the "great and the good" who run them?
Anyone think that government demands far exceed the value we receive?
Anyone who believes that government could have intervened to stop the market excesses and abuse we have seen? Well, I'm supporting you guys.
Anyone believe that "we" - meaning you -elected Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, so that Blair could accummulate a small fortune?
Anyone interested in getting a government that does real stuff, rather than frothing about?
Complain about this comment
I just thought of a little something else to help offset the unfortunate £8bn deficit created by the regrettable 'downturn'. Swindon Town Council, we were informed earlier in the week, is voting on whether to scrap speed cameras because they no longer get the proceeds: these go direct to the Treasury.
That should represent a tidy sum - in a 2-mile stretch of road between Studley and Coughton in Warwickshire there are no fewer than 5: and since I last travelled the route 2 days ago, there are some Heavy Black Skidmarks screeching to a halt just before the first of the Studley ones!
Complain about this comment
dhwilkinson
Relax.
Complain about this comment
148: Go, you, fairlyopenmind! I couldn't have put it all better myself!
Complain about this comment
Re #147 Eatonrifle
& 155 NorthernThatcherite
"The reactionary right wing ob here appear to have two main tactics NAME-CAllING first and if that fails EXAGERATE !"
Hardly "fair comment", and authoritarian NuLabour sypporters exhibit similar traits at times. Whatever happened to Labour & Tories fighting for the centre ground?
As an old Liberal, I don't see a huge amount of liberality or respect for democracy on either side. Both would be well-advised to listen to Vince Cable for once instead of yah-boo name calling at each other.
The LibDems have lost their way a bit on finishing the devolution process NuLabour tinkered with, but their fundamental ethos is that above an essential safety-net, local people should decide for themselves how big or small they want government to be rather than the central control which was the essence of both Fascism and Stalinism.
ir policies are relevant
Complain about this comment
#160 fairlyopenmind
The politicisation of the Civil Service preceded New Labour - though I think they have intensified it.
Probably inevitable under a political system in which both major UK parties, have little philosophical difference (despite mouthing platitudes to appeal to their core voters) and compete as to which will be better at "managing" the UK.
It's not the job of politicians to manage - but to set policy direction, and to ensure that a structure exists which can get rid of the "managers" (Civil Servants) who do the job badly.
Complain about this comment
dwilkinson:159.
Over the last 50 years EVERY Labour government has ended up with an economic distater due to never ending increases in taxation, ballooning borrowing and an inefficient spending splurge. Think back to the Labour Governments that lost the elections in 1970 and 1979. It will happen again in 2010 for the same reasons......the state over-extending itself into everybody's lives at our expense! They just don't understand how capitalism should work to the benefit of all.
Complain about this comment
I am afraid that I missed out on Labours biggest crime that will go down in your history as the biggest con of all on the working class , they had the damn lack of forsight to put three and a half million people back to work and to restore hundreds of apprenticeships.
Of course we didn't want them to back to work so that they could earn and have pride in themselves we wanted them to stay home so that we could pay them benefits and slag them off for being lazy bums.
Do you know that they even had the audacity a few days ago to tell us that there are more people employed now than at any time in the history of this country, who wants to know that.
Its like Dave Cameron said whats important to us is who thought up the Idea of intruducing criminals of knife crime to their victims, thats what Dave and the Tories want to know.Thats what we all wait with bated breath to find out but the evil devil wont tell us.
Complain about this comment
#151 oldnat
Many commercial organisations screw up big-time.
Seen that.
Worked for a US company whose staff levels dropped from 128,000 (and a really big profit declaration when I joined) to 38,000 staff, seven years later. But continued developing good products which still affect and help global companies. so no problem with the way real business works.
But I've real problems with the notion that the idea that any cuts in tax could mean a diminution of the effectiveness of state aid to the poorest.
If you take my income away, I could be fairly happy if you spend it well.
There has been minimal structural investment for a decade.
PPP/PFI deals come from external funding, and seem to drag us and our children into future dependency, So where has all the money gone over a decade?
I've checked as many ministers as I could bother. I can't find anyone who had to fight their way through the business world before drifting into a governmental post.
In fact, it's hard to find anyone in senior government positions who were exposed to the need to make or sell stuff. That's the only basis on which a company or nation can survive.
So why would anyone believe the guff that emerges from a bunch of academically accalimed, but limited (or non-existence) real life-experienced, prats?
Complain about this comment
It strikes me that the Lib Dems have been first to choke on this. Nick Clegg's announcement during the week must have more to do with being "frit" of Dave Cameron than any sound economic judgement. As for changing the fiscal rules, the key is how much they are changed! Capping borrowing at 40% of GDP is arbitrary and set given the context of the economic environment. That environment must be different to 1997 or even 2003/4.
Surely the best approach is to freeze spending but borrow more to offset the likely reduced tax take resulting from the slow down.
No doubt the decision will be personalised as the destruction of Brown's reputation. The embarassing George Osborne has already been trumpeting that line. The reality is about responding to the current context with the right (new) approach.
Complain about this comment
138 Northern Thatcherite, Sorry about that forgot to put your handle on the post probably a freudian slip owing to my inherrent dislike of your hero.
I am afraid that I missed out on Labours biggest crime that will go down in your history as the biggest con of all on the working class , they had the damn lack of forsight to put three and a half million people back to work and to restore hundreds of apprenticeships.
Of course we didn't want them to back to work so that they could earn and have pride in themselves we wanted them to stay home so that we could pay them benefits and slag them off for being lazy bums.
Do you know that they even had the audacity a few days ago to tell us that there are more people employed now than at any time in the history of this country, who wants to know that.
Its like Dave Cameron said whats important to us is who thought up the Idea of intruducing criminals of knife crime to their victims, thats what Dave and the Tories want to know.Thats what we all wait with bated breath to find out but the evil devil wont tell us.
Complain about this comment
Surprised that no one has mentioned the "Workfare" proposals leaked today. Has this been covered in the English media?
If not see the report at
www.theherald.co.uk
Complain about this comment
#165 oldnat
We may really be batting on the same side -hopefully making government of whatever party a bit more reasonable.
I agree that Ministers should "manage" the people who should bring policies into effect. The Civil Servants who have to carry out their policy decisions. Most CS staff try to do their bit. If not, they get de-hired (Lab talk for sacked).
There have been comments that the CS has been politicised for many decades. Not sure that's a fact.
Funny that so few Labour Minister have resigned because their decisions were so dumb that even a compliant civil service could not make it work.
If there were some linkage between delivery and "promise" there woud be very few ministers left today.
Blair suggested that yobs would be marched down to cash points to cough up fines. Just simply balls.
Brown was prudent - yes for a couple of years when he guaranteed to follow Tory guidelines.
Since then - well check out the ONS website to see how much the national debt has risen. Not a good sign.
Not at all sure about a Tory government, but this has been the worst government within my lifetime. "Bigging Up" but destroying any real values.
Complain about this comment
166 Thatcherite
"EVERY" Labour government
What of the Labour Government 1997 to 2001? or the 2001 to 2005 Labour Government?
Both Governments leading to re-election mainly due to a healthy economy.
By your measure every Tory Government 1974 and 1997 ended in Economic disaster too. Heath's with a three day week and Major's due to Sleaze and Black wednesday.
Every Government that ends in defeat at the polls has something to do with a problem in the economy!
Complain about this comment
172#
"Brown was prudent - yes for a couple of years when he guaranteed to follow Tory guidelines."
Know I've asked this before but only last week on R4 Cameron was still saying he'd stick to Labour spending for the first two years?
Why do we think this is?
Surely he should start slicing away those "nothing" jobs and get them on the dole sharpish.
BTW what is a "nothing" job?
Is the definition simply something YOU don't want but others (as they are employed) do want?
Complain about this comment
172#
Worst Government in your lifetime?
Really? Worse than 79 to 83? Dont you remember the riots everywhere and the desperation of mass unemployment.
THe economy was hardly booming if you recall and without the collosal windfalls from Privatisation and oil revenues at their peak would have taken a long time to recover. But credit where due Privatisation (with some exceptions) was right at the time just like Nationalisation was right for the post war period.
I still believe we wouldn't be quite so dogmatic if it wasn't for the global factors. Hopefully Dave will have a better crystal Ball than Gordon.
Complain about this comment
#172 fairlyopenmind
Cricketing analogies don't really work for Scots. A better analogy would be that we're playing different matches, meet up on one of St Andrew's double greens, and stop to complain about the greenkeepers.
Can't agree with you about the current Government. We finally got our Parliament and Government back, which means that most of the social issues complained of on this blog are quite irrelevant to me.
The Scots economy is still doing quite well, despite the credit crunch, house prices are not falling in many places, unemployment is at an all time low and employment at an all time high.
The UK Government gets some of the credit for the economy.
In foreign policy, this UK Government is not the worst I've lived under. Eden's Tories still have that doubtful status because of Suez.
Complain about this comment
"the state over-extending itself into everybody's lives at our expense! They just don't understand how capitalism should work to the benefit of all."
hmmm, leaving capitalism alone in free-market america has worked really well!
oh, actually, no, their economy is in bigger trouble, society is more divided and unfair, and their national debt is greater. the current malaise we are in is surely the greatest rebuttal to your argument possible
Complain about this comment
150 eatonrifle and GA
Hello chaps. lovely weather here in Gloucestershire.
Just scanned through some of your posts. I really do think you talk a lot of spherical objects.
Anyone would think, from what you say, that all in the garden is wonderful and GB and AD are doing a sterling job, whereas everyone I speak to just can't wait to get rid of Labour, and most of them don't vote Conservative; in fact some won't. Their main quandary is who to actually vote for. I tend to think around here the Greens will do very well.
I know the 20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but in your heart of hearts don't you both wish that GB and AD had "mended the roof while the sun shone" or is just having a Labour (ie. fake Conservative) government, no matter how incompetent, enough for you.
PS On another tack, there is a lot of talk about ELECTED PMs, ie the sainted MT, getting state funerals. Well that puts GB out of the running, not that he will last until 2010.
Bye for now. Nice bottle of claret to be opened.
Complain about this comment
#178 mikepko
re Thatcher. I liked Billy Bragg's comment that since state funerals are like state education - paid for by the taxpayer - Thatcher wouldn't approve.
Must rush - off to Shakespeare in the Park. I do like these foreign writers.
Complain about this comment
178 MikePKo
And greetings from Derbyshire!
I thought from the bon viveur you'd already had the Claret.
Thanks for the "spherical objects" comment, Ill add to my collection.
AS for if GB and AD are doing a good job well obviously they've been caught out by Global events. As for their overall political and economic acumen I still favour them over Dave and George who frankly just dont inspire ne at all?
Now I'm sure you'll deny being a Tory but
Do the work for you? Thats the choice come2010
Complain about this comment
#171 Oldnat
In theory Workfare could be a great boon in restoring self respect to people who haven't worked for years, and would also give the opportunity to many to enter the workforce, perhaps for the very first time. I have lived and worked in other countries where the blind, seriously physically disabled and mentally disadvantaged workers are able to work within the confines of their disabilities, leading far more fulfilling lives than most here in the UK. I have also worked alongside people in their seventies and eighties, people who would have been tossed onto the "garbage heap" years ago in ageist Britain. I say in theory, because unfortunately not only do the powers that be wear blinkers, but it is cheaper for them to provide benefits than to provide work. Light industry hardly exists anymore, its more economical to import from the Far East or other countries paying low wages. Rather than training or retraining being offered, its simpler and needs less effort to pay benefits. The NHS doctors, with their dedicated "ten minutes" for each patient, can hardly assess the abilities of their patients to fulfill a work schedule. A great sea change is needed, not only in society's expectations for its work force, but also a more moral or spiritual aspect of goals which should be attained by most citizens in a modern society. Workfare need not be a dirty word, but I'm afraid that in today's selfish climate of "grab what you can, with the least effort" it will be swiftly shelved.
Complain about this comment
Who pays for your trips with the Prime Minister?
Complain about this comment
Re: 177/moderateprogressive.
I wasn't advocating Adam Smith style laissez faire free-market capitalism in the way you have sought to kindly interpret.
I was making the point that Labour do not understand how business/capitalism works and why by overtaxing and over regulating business all they succeed in doing in the end is reducing businesses ability to generate wealth ..wealth which can then be redistributed to the benefit of all. If you look closely there are no "economic" Labour ministers with a business career background and therefore they will never understand how capitalism works and how it can be harnesses to the benefit of all.
If business and trade did not exist there would be very little wealth created, no jobs, no taxes to pay and therefore no public services at all. It would be an agrarian economy. Business is the lifeblood to everything we have and everything we want each other to have.
Labour have no idea how to create "real" wealth because they do not in their souls feel comfortable with the concept of "profit". They do know how to spend and waste money they haven't earned and......as we shall see they know exactly how to build up debt which in the end will have to repaid by the productivity of every business in the land.
Smaller government means more wealth. More wealth means greater opportunity to re-distribute..........starting with the aspirational poor!
Complain about this comment
158 Eatonrifle
For example :
106 your reference to public sector pensions as a "gift" - no one has said that or anything remotely hinting at it.
118 "who else would pay for the army, navy, nurses, police etc but the taxpayer"
No one has suggested that the taxpayer shouldn't pay for these. The points you reply to were referring to what I call "Politically Correct Non Jobs" - this does not include armed forces, police, nurses etc.
118 and 122 "carrying us to the toilet " and "you could do the jobs yourself if they are so cushy" Again no one has said that carrying someone to the toilet or such like is cushy.
150 "What people on here want is more and more low paid people (perhaps with no pension rights as that would cost the taxpayer too) to do the "public sector" jobs. A sort of under-class who should be grateful for a job at all."
Again I don't think that anyone has said that on here.
Your comment about an "underclass who should be grateful for a job", however, is actually a good point, because this is exactly what many people suspect that Gordon Brown has actually been trying to do - Expanding the state sector with large numbers of non jobs, and ideally he would like us all to be working for the state, and be grateful to him for it. People on benefits are another of his state dependent underclass. All of these will vote New Labour if the opposition are saying that they are going to reform them - a kind of vote buying really.
175 "What is a nothing job ?" Lots of Quango positions, lots of them in local government, 5 a day coordinators, many types of advisors, facilitators, monitors - see the jobs pages of the Guardian it is full of them.
Given the expansion in the numbers of people doing these "jobs", I cannot imagine how I or anyone else could have possibly survived before 1997 without the help of this huge new state infrastructure.
I think what most of the posts were trying to say is that the public sector has grown to the point were is can effectively no longer be sustained. Even Alistair Darling has today that they cannot put more money into it.
The pensions issues discussed have effectively led to increasing disparity to the benefits of private and public sector benefits. The phrase "pensions aparteid" has been used - I don't like the phrase myself - though I am aware that there is a problem and it can only get worse as I see it, and it is unsustainable in the long term. And today Alistair Darling seems to agree with us.
Complain about this comment
Re: 184/U117 etc etc
Your penultimate paragraph has hit the nail on the head!
Time to roll back the state..........again!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
183:
i believe, sir, you have kindly misinterpreted my words. allow me to explain.we now have higher levels of tax and regulation now than would have been the case with a tory government its safe to say. however, we still represent what is known as an anglo-saxon style economy with a flexible labour market and lowish taxation, compared to most developed and european countries. hence why the core vote, trade unions, left-wingers within the party, left leaning newspapers etc are such critics of blair and brown, for their pro-business policies. indeed, labour now has more businessman as MPs than manual workers. if we had an even more liberalised economy, we would have a US style economy, who seem to be having a few problems at the moment. hence I made the rebuttal of your post in the first place, because you argued that our problems stem from anti-business policies.
regards your argument about the poor, that is exactly the blair/brown line - which i support - that we need a fairly liberal, efficient economy to fund welfare programs such as tax credits. the last government, with its pro-business policies, saw a more than doubling of poverty. the current government has overseen reductions in poverty, despite a lack of proper progressive taxation and high economic growth. with a choice between free-market system with high levels of poverty, and a middle way approach of some liberalism combined with realistic interventionsim where needed, we have probably the best system in terms of combining both fairness with overall prosperity.
Complain about this comment
To anyone one of these people banging on about smaller government, non jobs, wealth creation etcetera. or any other Conservative buzz words.
You lot have reality perception issues. The real wealth creating jobs disappeared under the Conservatives union bashing. industry destroying reign over this country.
All we have now are a load of merchant bankers in a small part of London and aren't they doing well at the moment ;o).
How do you know what is a non job?
Complain about this comment
Comment 31 billabasing -Gordon Brown the best chancellor by far.
I appreciate that on the surface Brown does look pretty good but if you apply a bit of objective analysis is this really the case? Firstly, under a 'Socialist' banner Brown has been able to tax the working population like no other chancellor. People basically trusted New Labour promises and accepted the punative stealth taxes. As such Brown has had access to money that recent Chancellors' would have given their eye teeth to have at their disposal. So, Brown has been able to spend, spend, spend and look good. Sadly, by general concenus across the political spectrumm vast amounts of OUR money has been wasted, filched / stolen by fraud and handed out incorrectly by Govermment departments. In addition, Brown's so called financial
safe-guards have been found badly wanting ( Northern Rock) and Brown must take his fair share of the blame for wrecking the best pension schemes in the world. On top of all this Brown has allowed the economy to 'flourish' as a debt based, service / retail driven economy. He then sold our gold reserves for a fraction of what gold is now worth so that we lost more than we lost on the infamous 'Black Wednesday'. Another dreadful decision. Add to this the 10p tax fiasco and his absence when any major problem occurs and to me it seems we have a gutless Politician with very bad decision making tendencies. To summarise, Brown, up to this point has been very lucky. He has ridden on a world wide growth pattern and allowed the country to get into massive personal and Public debt. Brown has constantly fiddled the inflation figures by taking out mortgage repayments and council tax, the two biggest monthly payments for most people. He has also massaged the unemployment figures by creating a column for ' job seekers and training. All in all I think he has been awful. Like so many New Labour ministers and politicans Brown has never held down a proper job, coming through the ranks via student politics etc. There are many, many people today who will have a much poorer life because of Brown and New Labour. Yes, New Labour have some excellent policies and we must all do our best to help the poor and needy. However, wasting billions on people too lazy to work, spending millions on crony led quangos and dishing out fraudlent payments willy nilly because of complex benefits systems does not help anybody. Now, for everyone to see, Browns chickens have well and truly come home to roost. He has bragged and bragged about how good he his. Now let him be seen for what he is. i.e. A man of great intellect but lacking in political courage and judgement.
Complain about this comment
"He then sold our gold reserves for a fraction of what gold is now worth so that we lost more than we lost on the infamous 'Black Wednesday'."
the gold reserves were sold off at a far lower level than they are now, but the loss of which is nothing like the black wednesday loss. the decision was probably made because it was needed before entering the euro. nobody expected the dollar to fall like it has and hence the increase in gold prices, which will come down in the future, as the dollar picks up.
"Brown has constantly fiddled the inflation figures by taking out mortgage repayments and council tax"
thats not true. im not sure where you got the mortgage payments bit, because we used the RPIX (i.e. the RPI without mortgages) from 1993, for reasons which im not going in to. we switched to the CPI (without council tax) in around 2002/2003 i think, in preperation to enter the euro, as its that is used by the european central bank. however, it was decided we wouldnt enter the euro, and so the CPI stayed. at some points, the CPI has overtaken the RPIX, which of course had a higher target. the CPI is use all over the world because monetary policy of course cannot do anything about government council tax increases, and hence including it on the data used by the BoE would be ineffective.
Complain about this comment
Nick, surely by now you must have realised that the impact that ANY change in government policy has hits us all in the form of the British people paying MORE tax!
So the Chancellor increases borrowing....That means that the tax payer will not only be funding the changes eventually, but they will be paying interest on them too!
After all, the government does NOT have any money of its own. So, in a sense it is not the government borrowing more money. It is the government forcing us to borrow more money for them to waste.
They should look at what they are spending, highlight the 100 billion pounds of annual waste and cut that. Then we could, perhaps, keep a little bit more of OUR hard earned money.
Complain about this comment
"The real wealth creating jobs disappeared under the Conservatives union bashing. industry destroying reign over this country. "
What nonsense. Labour and the unions destroyed a huge amount of our competitive industrial edge in the 1970's/
The tories rooted out the waste and made manufacturing profotable. the Tories left power in 1997 with record exports from a lower industrial base, and manufacturing jobs on the increase again.
How many manufacturing jobs have labour created in the last 11 years??? And I mean REAL manufacturing. I do not count making burgers at the local fast food outlet for an international fast food chain as manufacturing.
Labour has done NOTHING for British manufacturing.
Complain about this comment
BTW, Labour has done NOTHING for British manufacturing by design. The last thing labour wants is for the UK to be independent or self sufficient in anything that is important to maintain itself as a strong, independent state.
We MUST become totally dependent upon other "states" of the EU for manufacturing so that we can never EVER become independent ever again. Other states who become strong manufacturer's have to become dependent on other states for other things. This is all be design to create a single country as a stepping stone to a global single state. the "new world order" that Brown has mentioned repeatedly in several speeches.
Complain about this comment
184# U1224
You said
" your reference to public sector pensions as a "gift" - no one has said that or anything remotely hinting at it."
At 104 you say
"the ever growing public sector pension schemes, where the gold plated retire at 60 schemes are funded for by the taxpayer come what may"
Got to say that does not just sound like remotely hinting but directlly sounds like you're implying that tax payers fund these pensions when infact significant contributions are paid by the employees for upto 40 years, anything up to 11%.
If you don't think what you said is even "remotely hinting" that public sector pensions are given to them I suggest you read again.
Complain about this comment
192#Purple
You need to get out more, you really do ( before the nasty foreigners come to get you)
Complain about this comment
#176 oldnat
I'm a Devonian by upbringing - born in Somerset - but born a Brit (obviously grown up in England).
You seem to have been born elsewhere within these isles.
Frankly, I don't give a damn which part of the UK you were born in.
The English have benefited from the genius of the Scots and v.v.
What I worry about know is how our children can emerge with spirits intact after the Blair/Brown attack on core values.
Complain about this comment
195#
What is this "attack" on core vlues that you refer to?
How has this attack manifested itself on your life?
I'm truly curious
Complain about this comment
comment 189 - moderate progressive
If I do not have my facts exactly correct it is to my chagrin and I duly apologise. Whilst I am not terribly enamoured with the Tories, to keep harping back to Tory Chancellors' and what happened during Tory years in order to boost Brown is pointless. New Labour have done this constantly but they have been in power for eleven years now and all I know is that under its watch, as a very working class person and now a Pensioner life is far worse both financially and in terms of social stability than ever I remember. This may simply be because I come from the old school and as such I will not borrow money unecessarily, I don't know. However, I think it fair to say Brown has been lucky and irresponsible by the same measure, by building the economy on debt. I don't think you can argue adversly to other points made, particularly with regard pensions and his over complex and wasteful benefit system. Bear in mind there are twenty five year olds and indeed two or three generations of families that have never worked and live a lifetime on benefits. Whilst many cannot help this situation there are thousands that are not the least botherd and this makes it bad for the people who truly must have help. It is only my opinion but I do not think Brown has done a good job, given the money he has had at his disposal and with the fair wind of global economy at his back. re the massaging of figures, proof of this is coming out daily from all directions, including the Governments own figures. Take any subject you like, immigration, education, unemployment, crime, benefits, people dying from MRSA the list is endless. I also take issue with the money 'lost' by selling our Gold reserves, as reliable financial sources say this is far worse than people imagine. The point here is that most governments held on to Gold reserves, Brown did not. Another flawed decision. Re inflation if you compare like with like I think you will find the current inflation figure, although lower, would be much nearer the figures of yesterdyear than Brown likes to admit. My apologies again for getting my facts slightly awry.
Complain about this comment
192 purpledogz.
What Labour has done for British industry is avoided the xenophobic route of pulling out of Europe. and has not been so hostile as to alienate us from Europe. Unlike the Conservatives.
Your independence point, suggesting that we are being taken over by Germany and France. Shows a lack of confidence in this country. Surely the idea is we are all inter-dependant on each other. Working together. To Help us to compete with The likes of United States and Asia.
Unfortunately we are a tiny country which no longer has an Empire. Europe is a fact and we should be more positive and involved. and make this planet a more beautiful place for us all.
Now You'll probably call me a fifth columnist or something. The 2nd world War is over.
Complain about this comment
Re #180 Eatonrifle
"Thanks for the "spherical objects" comment, Ill add to my collection."
Shades of Sir Humphrey's response when Hacker annotated a memo "round objects":
"Who is Round and to what does he object?"
On topic, you really don't have to be a Tory to know authoritarianism, incompetence and desperation when you see it. Cameron may well be just as much of an idiot as Brown, but our "quaint" 1872 plurality voting system, which Bliar promised to revisit in '97, will almost certainly make him the next "Buggins" to have a turn at tidying up the mess.
If you really are a NuLabour supporter, you may well feel that the next general election is indeed "the one to lose" as Cameron looks odds-on to become the unionist who broke the union, thanks largely to asymmetric devolution in '99.
As you shed a tear for the passing of NuLabour, just consider that if Bliar had followed through with his promised electoral and Lords reform, there would probably have been a strong coalition government from 2001. A cabinet containing Ashdown and Campbell (M) would never have accepted the "dodgy dossier", left devolution unfinished, countenanced the authoritarianism of ID cards &c. or lost its reputation over cash for honours - unlike the "yes persons" Bliar and Brown have always preferred.
Complain about this comment
Re #181 Phoenixarisen
We've had such an organisation since just before the end of WW2, set up by the wartime coalition. It's called Remploy - see http://www.remploy.co.uk/
Trouble is the compassionate NuLabour government has slashed its support and is being forced to close more than half its 83 factories.
Some compassion. Some government.
Complain about this comment
200 Browndov
That's just what I am upset about. This government has no compassion whatsoever. Military service families are forced to live in substandard housing, whilst the MPs have not one good home but TWO. Forgive me moving away from the subject in hand, but the more I see and hear of this wretched charade of a government the angrier I become, not a good emotion when writing factually. It's obvious that Brown will prefer to pour money away on benefits rather than get people into work. A benefits dependent is far more likely to vote for Nu Labour than a person in work.
Complain about this comment
Re #181 Phoenixarisen
A photocopy of the entire Welfare Green Paper is on the Sky News website.
While I've only had a quick skim through it, it seems reasonably balanced (which means many of the "mad dogs" on this thread will condemn it).
I like the idea of restoring the obligation on people (other than the severely disabled and carers) to seek work. This goes back to the pre-Thatcher ideal of balancing rights and responsibilities.
Her Government was the one which pushed so many onto Incapacity Benefit to make the unemployed figures less appalling.
Most would probably not contest that the structural adjustment, over which Thatcher presided, was necessary - it was the lack of humanity in the process which left so many economic and social casualties, whose families are concentrated in the most deprived pockets of the de-industrialised UK.
There are no easy answers to changing the cultural values in these multi-generational unemployed communities, but the Green Paper does seem to suggest strategies which might restore the society that Thatcher thought did not exist.
Complain about this comment
#195 fairlyopenmind
Where I was born is irrelevant. It's where I live that makes the difference.
I don't know what attack the UK (masquerading as English) Government is mounting on your children's core values, but I don't see it in our education system.
Complain about this comment
#201 Phoenixarisen
"A benefits dependent is far more likely to vote for Nu Labour than a person in work."
Actually benefits claimants are much less likely to vote at all.
Complain about this comment
Re #201 Phoenixarisen
Sorry if I was being facetious.
I agree with what you say, but I suspect there are others on this forum who are unaware of Remploy and its shabby treatment for some time, when one would think it's an ideal base to build on.
I haven't had any contact with it since the Heath Govt. but in those days it was a supplier of choice in a number of specialist fields.
Complain about this comment
#200 Brownedov:
"Trouble is the compassionate NuLabour government has slashed its support and is being forced to close more than half its 83 factories."
I'm afraid that this sort of comment is increasingly typical of the nonsense that appears on this board. There are 83 Remploy factories, and 17 are to close under the latest proposals from the firm. This is the result of the need to improve efficiency in order to ensure that Remploy can continue to operate without an open-ended subsidy.
To quote from the Remploy site, the proposals will:
-Quadruple the number of jobs the company finds for disabled people in mainstream employment to 20,000 a year in five years' time
-Reduce management and overhead costs by £49m over five years
-Close 32 (now reduced to 17) and merge 11 out of 83 factories
-Guarantee that no disabled employee would be made compulsorily redundant
-Offer all 2,300 affected disabled employees a job with Remploy, a mainstream employer or a social organisation, on their current terms and conditions
-Remain within a £555m government spending limit over five years "
"The plan which we have submitted to the Secretary of State meets the goals set by the Government for us to support many more disabled people into jobs in mainstream employment, avoid compulsory redundancy of employees and remain within the £555m funding limit."
So no slashing of support, reorganisation with no redundancies, and greater efficiency protecting the future of the organisation. And certainly NOT closing more than half its factories.
Similarly #201 Phoenixarisen, who seems blissfully unaware of the billions that the government has spent, and is continuing to spend, to bring service accomodation up to standard after years of (Tory) neglect; and of the fact that employment levels in the UK have never been higher as a result of the government getting people into work.
This sort of thing is not a matter of a difference of opinion, it is just plain ignorance of the facts.
Complain about this comment
Re #203 oldnat
All true.
Within living memory, I was a parent governor of a state school in the London Borough most associated with Red Ken and despite the "no competitive sports" and "multiculturalism for all but the English" ethos, the teachers did their best to rise above it. It cannot have been much fun for them, though, and staff turnover was horrific.
I also know you'll respond that it's up to the English to decide their own arrangements and in their power to do so, and you'll be right. More are beginning to realise the cure is in their own hands, but I suspect there'll be at least one more dose of the Tories before it comes to pass.
Complain about this comment
202 Oldnat
Mrs Thatcher, despite leading the Tory party, and having certain talents lacking in today's Nu Labour cabinet, shared with them a complete lack of humanity. Her skills on the international stage far outshone her cold and remorseless treatment of the neediest members of society. Indeed, she denied that there was community or society.
Since I've probably now outraged the "mad dogs" on both sides, (I see #206 Jimbrandt is as usual convinced that anybody not on his side is ignorant) I'd better call it a day and so to bed......Good night!
Complain about this comment
Re #206 jimbrant
I gave the URL, jimbrant, and anyone can choose to read it or not. Hain had not resigned as the minister at the time and issued a press release in late 2007 saying he approved 55 factories out of the 83 staying open but it's all gone quiet since then. As you can see for yourself, Remploy haven't updated their website, possibly feeling, like others, that the word of Hain is not something to bet your shirt on.
I guess we'll eventually know whether 55 stay open or the original 40 in the May 2007 plan written on government instrustions but I shan't hold my breath.
Closing any of the 83 factories will cause significant hardship to many individuals, of course.
Complain about this comment
206 Jimbrant
Was really off to bed, but just one last word. You state the government are rectifying years of Tory neglect regarding service family accomodation. But surely, the big bad wolf, the tories, have been out of power for eleven years. How much longer can they remain the scapegoat for everything that is wrong?
Complain about this comment
#210 Phoenixarisen
Good morning - hope you slept well.
Of course, if the UK had armed forces more in tune with their real (instead of historical) influence in the world, there would be more TA soldiers usually living comfortably at home - except in times of genuine crisis - and a smaller professional force which could be treated properly, since defence (as opposed to aggression) spending wouldn't be wasted on Trident, new aircraft carriers etc.
Complain about this comment
oldnat 211
How much smaller do you think the Army should get?
At under 110,000 it is a bit bigger than a large football crowd.
When you discount the soldiers undergoing training etc, you could fit the rest into Wembley with room to spare.
Complain about this comment
Over the past ten years how many times have we heard dear prudent Gordon Brown say in response to almost any tricky economy based question, "......there will be no return to the old Boom and Bust economics of the previous Tory Governments". If I was David Cameron at PMQs I would be hitting GB with this quote at every opportunity.
Complain about this comment
213.......Yes that would be a fitting accusation...............because it's true!
Just a thought on BOOM and BUST BROWN..................and his past decisions.............
If the Gov't used the RPI figure for inflation which includes mortgage and house prices then as house prices fall this will help inflation fall, thus resulting in interest rate cuts once inflation gets to say the 2% level.............this will help the housing market out of its free-fall which is not good for the economy or those who are about to become unemployed as a result!
If the Govt carries on with the CPI measure...this will just go up and up due to oil and food etc and the unemployment rate will be much worse than it needs to be.
The advantage of swapping from the CPI to the RPI now is that once the housing market stabilises then should house prices start racing ahead again (there is huge pent up demand) once mortgages become available then interest rates will be raised to cap the excessive house prices rises that we have seen in the past.....................
and hey presto.........housing market stability and thus economic stability and less suffering for those who will now lose their jobs due to this Govt's failure in allowing the housing market to boom on the back of low interest/mortgage rates!!!!!!!!
Can anyone tell me did the Govt change the inflation measure in 2005 to exclude mortgage rates and house prices thus resulting in 3.75% BoE rates thus resulting in the 2006/2007 house price boom?
Complain about this comment
Nick I see that Gordon Brown is out in the middle east going about the business of beng a diplomat and prime minister he's doing the work he's supposed to be doing and seen to be doing it on a daily basis, I am afraid I dont see much activity from the Tory camp lately.
Dave did appear on the Andrew Marr show this morning, I thought it quite amusing that he complains about GB not answering questions at PMQs and yet he never gave one direct answer to Andrew Marr he did say that his answer to knife crime was to jail everyone caught with a knife but when asked were they would put them his answer was GB should have built more prisons.
Does anybody know how many new prison places have been built under Labour.
The reason there full is because the police under Labour are catching more criminals.
One other point that came to light is that every thing good that labour has done in the last few years has been pinched from the Tories but all the bad things were Labours own idea. In his dreams.
Complain about this comment
the government cannot use rpi for measuring inflation. before the introduction of the cpi we used the rpix which excludes mortgage costs. because the rpi includes mortgage interest payments - which the banks base rate would change - when the bank increases interest rates to combat inflation, mortgage interest payments would rise and hence so would the inflation figure.
interestingly, a few years ago the rpix overtook the cpi, and certain conservative commentators said brown would readopt the rpix to fiddle the figures. he didnt of course.
your last point, no, because the change was from the rpix to the cpi, not from the rpi to the cpi. in fact, because the cpi overtook the rpix in late '05, if we hadnt had the change interest rates could have been lower.
housing price boom has been a result of fixed supply (which the government are trying to improve), with increased demand, due to several factors. firstly, increased and record levels of employment and also decade of real income growth.
Complain about this comment
215: for all Dave's claims of a broken society, your right about the criminals part. both the police and the bcs crime figures show a fall of 10%. thats what you get from being tough on crime and its causes i suppose. although the current teenage knife crime problems in london are appalling and need focusing on, our society has actually never been safer.
Complain about this comment
215 I am afraid that I did forget Cameron did make a commitment on the EU treaty, If it isnt ratified by the time he gets into power then he will hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, that was a pretty easy one for him dont you think, considering that the earliest he could be there is 2010 by which time it will have long been ratified our abandoned.
He did say that in future if he's in power any treaties involving the EU, he will hold a referendum. That'll be a Tory first.
It could come back and bite him on the backside but being a Tory if that situation arises his reply will be"Ah! but this is not the same thing".
Complain about this comment
#209 Brownedov:
Yes, you gave an accurate url. But the allegations in your post about what the govenrnment are doing as regards Remploy was inaccurate. Why not just admit it?
#210 Phoenixarisen:
"How much longer can they [the tories] remain the scapegoat for everything that is wrong?"
That depends on how big the problem is. It will take decades to put the railways right, and several more years to refurbish/rebuild all the service accommodation. But however long it takes, it doesn't invalidate the argument thet the problem was caused by neglect by the previous government.
And to both, I note that you do not even attempt to argue that my post was factually inaccurate. And if it was not, then both of yours were!
Complain about this comment
#218 grandantidote:
"He did say that in future if he's in power any treaties involving the EU, he will hold a referendum."
Yes, that was the most (perhaps only) interesting thing he had to say, and I wonder what exactly it meant. Would there have to be a treaty to allow Turkey's membership, for example? - I admit that I don't know the position on that.
In any event, it sounds like a recipe for the immobilisation of the EU, which may be the objective.
Complain about this comment
#212 Woppit
Wow! Housing the army in Wembley! that'll save money - but Chile already tried a model something like that.
Complain about this comment
219 Jimbrant
Good day Jimbrant,
I didn't respond to your posting because I was reading up on Remploy. I will now attempt to argue my point, although I do not have the advantage of official political tracts, prepared by specific political parties!
Let's see if I can respond in a civilised manner, and you can counter-argue without calling me ignorant, stupid or whatever you usually do. I don't go in for name calling, it's childish and just creates a bad atmosphere.
First, regarding Remploy, which I read carefully on google. I saw various points of view, the official and those against the policies of consolidation, etc. It seems to me, that government is using the old ploy of 'modernisation and economic advantage' by reducing the actual size of Remploy. The old tricks applied in the NHS, education and every other aspect of life where government has its fingers. Brownedov #209, is correct in his remarks that the website has not been updated, and his other observations appear accurate. Concerning the scapegoating of the tories, after 11 years, if as it appears possible, they return at the next election, how long do you think it will take to repair all the damage Nu Labour has done? Or do you think they will leave government with everything coming up roses?
Complain about this comment
its not scapegoating to use actual truth. if the government had a press-conference where they argued that the loss of data disks for example was the tories fault, that would be scapegoating. if the government inherits a army housing stock in appalling state, which it slowly tries to improve, then it is fair and valied to point out that the condition of housing is not the gov.ts fault.
Complain about this comment
223 moderateprogressive
Eleven years! How slow is slowly?
Complain about this comment
#222 Phoenixarisen:
First of all I didn't call you ignorant. I try hard not to indulge in personal name-calling. What I said was that the comments made in the two posts to which I was responding displayed "just plain ignorance of the facts." There is a big difference between saying that someone displays ignorance, and saying that they are ignorant.
Secondly, I do not have any special access to information. I am not a member of any political party, and I do not have "advantage of official political tracts, prepared by specific political parties!". Like you, I use the internet to try to validate what I say.
As for Remploy, you say that you have looked at the information on the web, but still see Brownedov's criticisms as being valid. All I can say is that I cannot see how you can possibly come to that conclusion. The funding has not been cut. There were proposals by Remploy to make the organisation more efficient (and therefore more likely to survive) involving the closure of factories, and it was the Minister who intervened to reduce the number of closures - see http://www.remploy.co.uk/press/revised_modernisation_proposals/. How this represents a basis for criticism of the government's level of compassion I fail to see
The site has not been updated because that represents the current position, which the government are considering.
Your final comment on service accommodation is simply off the point.
You and Brownedov have every right to make judgements about the objective evidence and come up with different opinions to mine, based on those judgements; but you can't just make supposedly factual statement which are inaccurate, and use those as the basis for your judgements.
Complain about this comment
well, personally i would like to see a far higher living standard provided to the troops as a matter of absolute necessity. i was merely commmentating on the scapegoating argument. considering the defence budget is rather constrained by the number of wars we have been involved in, its hardly surprising that progress hasnt been overwhelming. personally, i would rather slow progress than continued damage, you?
Complain about this comment
225 Jimbrant
I accept that you didn't call me ignorant, just ignorant in what you see as the facts. I accept that we have different views, and that both of us believe we are right.
226 moderateprogressive
Of course I'd rather see slow progress than none at all. But, in my simplicity, I'd sooner see funds channeled away from housing and supporting illegal immigrants, and terrorists who cannot be deported, and these funds put into a budget for housing service families. There are lots of houses standing empty, surely they could be requisitioned, as happened at the end of World War II, and where possible filled with needy families, both service and UK civilians.
Complain about this comment
Wow. I hadn't realised that people who occupy this zone were so committed.
I seem to have attracted a reasonable amount of flak. I'm not dedicated to the screen, so will try to handle a few comments fairly rapidly.
#174 "Nothing jobs". Come on. You know what I mean. A real job is something that delivers value to a private or public organisation. A nothing job is one created in order to get people into employment, or fulfill some company leader's fantasy.
If you want to claim a reduced employment level, you can invent a job such as "litter spotter" - somebody who walks around town and makes a note of every piece of litter. Then passes that on to the "litter spotter's manager" who records the information, with due regard for any existing legislation, and subsequently has the "litter spotter's technical assistant" to prepare the statistics needed to produce a government sponsored QANGO report. So we have three people paid for out of taxation to deliver no value. (Except to claim that these guys or gals are now employed. And to praise the work of the over-paid QANGO members, appointed by the government...)
I live in a town which is fairly calm (except on Friday and Saturday nights). Over eight years, I have seen a walking policeman on only three occasions, when some minor incident occured. I often see the cars passing through towards the local cop shop, but have never seen a copper on foot patrol. Maybe bad timing on my behalf - but I'd far rather see my tax payments spent on something positive like crime control, rather than inventing new laws and regulations that have little impact on real life, but require "jobs" to ensure they are properly monitored.
This isn't just a state employment issue. There are plenty of people doing nothing jobs within private companies. But I see no justification for paying taxes to support non-productive "jobs".
For each working day of Parliament, there are on average 17/18 laws/regulations/ statutory instruments implemented. Sometimes they are introduced without the need for Parliamentary scrutiny.
Do you have any idea what they refer to? I certainly dont. I very much doubt that any Minister or MP understands the detail or their implications. But someone will be working away to find out. That's a nothing job. If we have no idea what rules are being implemented to govern private or corporate life, we create nothing jobs to simplky find out what the heck is going on...
#175
I do believe this is the most profligate government I can remember.
Nationalisation was pre-consciousness for me. I have no problem with the state being a significant participant and stake-holder in vital areas of public service.
I see no evidence that the UK state ever was or is able to manage businesses. Just look at our ministers. How many have any idea what it takes to make decisions in a commercial/business climate? It is simply NOT the same to manage taxes that people have no option over their payments, to manage income gained by selling a product or service.
There are any number of Labour/Tory/Lib ministers or shadows with great degrees. Well, take a look around industry and you'll find plenty of people with even better qualifications who never make it to the highest ranks because it's tougher.
(It was bit rich of Gordon Brown - specialist in the impact of the Labour party on Scotland - to say that Vince Cable (chief economist for Shell in his previous life) didn't understand the economics...)
There were several good areas of development and production within the UK (and still are!). There were millions of good people doing their best to deliver things post WW2. But it got out of hand.
Management did not or could not manage. There should have been a better understanding of how employees and share-holders worked together. But organised labour was not brought into the equation in a sensible manner. (Please note: I believe that today there is a stupidly generous remuneration system for directors of private or publicly owned organisations.)
Many organisations failed because rules were followed (many of them just dumb) and productive - that's to say buyable - outcomes did not emerge.
BL? Killed by union stupidity.
Steel? GPO? Railways? Ship building?
The notion of creating nationally owned companies is no anathema to me. The idea that they can be run by ministers with no understanding of the business worl really gets my goat.
Patricia Hewitt is now a non-exec board member of BT. What does the telecomms company really think they gain from an abbysmal ex-member of a profligate government?
#176
Anthony Eden was a sick man. Made a sick decision - with the French - to try and keep open a gateway to the UK's trading world that the French paid for. Would it have happened today? I very much doubt it.
Anthony Blair took us into a number of conflict zones. Some possibly justified. But while Eden stated the need to protect access to the Eastern areas of the old empire - in other words trading areas - Blair (with no dissent from Brown) allowed the invention of "intelligence" to determine our righteous invasion of territories. I am still not aware of any declaration of war by this government. Maybe you can put me right.
Complain about this comment
Picking up on fairlyopenmind's comment (228) about 'nothing jobs' (shades of digging trenches only to fill them in again!) I was watching comments on Newsnight last week about rising unemployment. First it was claimed that it wasn't really rising - which I knew from personal current experience to be untrue. Then it was said that the impact of the current downturn on unemployment wouldn't be as bad this time around as it was in the 1980s because it would be cushioned by temporary and part-time work which barely existed as a concept back then.
Since temporary and part-time jobs are filled only because people need that kind of work (if indeed they aren't forced into that kind of work because full-time employment cannot be found), I'm guessing that temporary and part-time employment figures simply aren't included in unemployment statistics. Am I right? Otherwise, I can't see that it will in any way diminish the recorded rise in unemployment - and, indeed, if a jobshare post becomes vacant and remains unfilled, or is declared redundant, then the figures will rise by 2 rather than just by 1.
Meanwhile, proposals to make people 'work for their benefits' stigmatize those of us who'd be more than willing to work extremely hard, if only we could find someone to employ us, as a load of idle so-and-sos only too happy to sit around all day, collecting a benefit somewhat below subsistence level!
Self-delusion is a wonderful thing, and sometimes seems a prerequisite for governments and civil servants . . .
Complain about this comment
Re #218 grandantidote
"It could come back and bite him on the backside but being a Tory if that situation arises his reply will be"Ah! but this is not the same thing"."
Like Brown and Lisbon?
Complain about this comment
228 fairlyopenminded
You are not dedicated to the screen so will handle a few comments fairly rapidly.......
Wow, imagine if your were a real blogging freak!
Seriously, your comments were extremely erudite, interesting and thought provoking. Really a great pleasure to read.
Complain about this comment
118 (176) It's simply that the trading zones have altered, surely? Both Iraq and Iran are oil-rich; one is already devastated and the US is rattling its sabre (via the Israelis) at the other; and my fear is that we continue to cling to Bush's coat-tails despite recent experience.
Why they don't sink all that war expenditure into research, I've no idea: both oil and natural gas will run out one day, even if they manage to circumvent the Russians and access polar supplies. What will they do then?
Complain about this comment
Re #219 jimbrant
"Yes, you gave an accurate url. But the allegations in your post about what the govenrnment are doing as regards Remploy was inaccurate. Why not just admit it?"
The House Rules encourage you to quote URLs rather than pasting large chunks of text, especially if copyright rules may apply. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether my #200 and #209 are fair comment or not.
The fact remains that of Remploy's 83 factories, NuLabour wanted them to close 43 and may have backed off to "only" close 28. In either case my use of the term "slashed its support" strikes me as reasonable.
More to the point, Purnell made no mention of Remploy in his Marr interview today, and Marr was not well enough briefed to raise the issue.
"It will take decades to put the railways right"
It certainly will, but you seem to think it was solely the Tories who trashed them. Certainly the way they denationalised them was idiotic, but the trashing took place on Labour's watch in the '60s thanks to the then Lab/Tory "Butskellite" consensus over Beeching. That in turn took place because of the idiocy of the '45-'51 Labour government in choosing to invest in diesels running on imported oil instead of maintaining steam until mainlines could be electrified, as recommended by most of the senior "old company" executives, led by Riddles. The unreliability and short working life of the early diesels set back mainline electrification for decades. France and most of the rest of the old EC went the other way with the result of a modern electrified system except on byways.
Complain about this comment
228 fairlyopenminded
I've been trying to respond to your comment re Suez, but posts don't appear. I'll try again later.
Complain about this comment
Re #225 jimbrant
Just worked my way down to this one.
Anyone who cares can follow the link or Google Remploy and make up their own minds.
I have no intention of droning on over this but simply point out that the guarantee of "no compulsory redundancies" is indeed compassionate to those currently in Remploy's employment if their family circumstance permit them to relocate, but much less so to the younger disabled not yet lucky enough to have been employed and that NuLabour's failure to confirm a Nov '07 amelioration of their May '07 diktat amply demonstrates how stongly such matters worry them.
Complain about this comment
Re #234 oldnat
If your comment just disappeared, you may be having the problem I helped fairlyopenmind to understand in my #112, #128 & #129 on this thread.
Complain about this comment
#229 terraprophetess:
I think you may have misunderstood what was being said. As I understood it, the 'temporary' labour referred to was primarily the influx of overseas (East European) who had been attracted to the UK by the availability of 'excess' jobs. If and when the labour market tightens, the expectation would be that those 'temporary' immigrants will go back home, or elsewhere in the EU if there is anywhere else with better job prospects.
Complain about this comment
#228
I won't bore you with the history of Suez, but just to correct some points -
The French didn't "pay for" the Suez Canal. It was built by a French company that used Egyptian labourers on ?slave? wages - Disraeli (probably illegally) borrowed 4m pounds from Rothschild's to buy the Khedive of Egypt's shares so that the UK Government had effective control of the Canal.
Complain about this comment
#235 Brownedov:
" their May '07 diktat "
Which diktat? - please give the link so that I can see it. Do you mean the Remploy modernisation plan, that the Minister said they had to reconsider so that fewer factories would close? That's why the new plan suggests 17 closures (not 43 as originally proposed, or 28 as you claim; you are conflating the merger of adjoining factories with the number to be closed).
Since you prefer urls to quotes, I ask you to look at http://www.remploy.co.uk/news/articles/2006/7/19/RemployToQuadrupleJobsForDisabledPeople/
In particular you might note : "The National Audit Office reported last year that some of our businesses are not sustainable and the review by consultants PwC reinforces the need for Remploy?s modernisation...........Manufacturing is under pressure from overseas competition and each job in our factories costs on average £18,000 a year. For the same money we can place four people in real and satisfying jobs with outside employers ..".
Complain about this comment
Reading all the Remploy's entries in google, I find yet another indictment of lack of compassion. This appears in The Guardian - not the Mail and not the Telegraph. On March 25, 2008 the newspaper exposes the fact that top management will not give up their expensive cars, settling or cheaper models, despite the cuts being made. This can be found by googling REMPLOY and then going to guardian.co.uk/society.march 25, 2008. (I've abbreviated this). This doesn't say much for modernisation, etc. etc.
Complain about this comment
Re #239 jimbrant
Sorry. Instead, I should have written: "their diktat which resulted in Remploy's May '07 proposals"
See McGuire's answer of 9 May '07 in Hansard at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070509/text/70509w0014.htm#0705101001644
The 55 came from Hain's November '07 memo.
How NuLabour newspeak resulted in Remploy's May '07 proposals is not for me to explain.
If all have access to the information all can read what they will into it.
Complain about this comment
#241 Brownedov:
So the 'diktat' merely consisted of the minister saying:
"Mrs. McGuire: In my statement on 19 July 2006 I said I would be asking the board of Remploy to undertake the preliminary work to bring forward later this year a five-year restructuring plan with proposals both to modernise the business and to support substantially larger numbers of disabled people into work. It is currently working on that plan"
How very uncompassionate to ask for proposals to help more disabled people. The fiends!
Complain about this comment
228 fairlyopenminded
Part 2 (I hadn't understood that the ampersand was not allowed)
When Nasser nationalised the Canal, Britain, France and Israel plotted to act that
Israel would invade Egypt, Britain and France would then intervene as "peace-keepers", and seize the Canal Zone.
Blair and Bush were liars over Iraq, but at least they didn't start one war in order to justify their own!
My opinion still stands that while the foreign policy of the New Labour administration has been appalling, and a disgrace to democracy, Eden was worse.
Also Eden's physical sickness may well have post-dated the crisis; his mental illness preceded it. Paranoia and dreams of world domination are not infrequent in the leaders of Imperialist (and post-imperialist) countries. Hence Eden, Thatcher, Blair, Reagan, Bush etc.
Time for the British to depart.
Complain about this comment
#242 jimbrant
Can you elucidate whether Remploy is a UK function, or devolved to one or more of the non-UK administrations?
Not a ploy - simply a request for information, since you obviously are good on this,
Complain about this comment
Re #242 jimbrant
As her "request" to the board has not been published, we will probably never know exactly why they thought it behooved them to propose closing 43 of their 83 factories in their May '07 response. We must judge for ourselves whether they were "off message" or obeying their mistress' voice.
If you think this was NuLabour's finest hour then good for you. I do not. Maybe someday the electorate will give the judgement that matters. Sadly, they're likely to give it in favour of the Tories, who are almost as bad.
In any event, we're starting to drift off the topic of this thread and I shall respond to no more of your posts on Remploy unless they contain factual inaccuracies or personal insults.
Complain about this comment
Re #244 oldnat
jimbrant may have gone off for his tea, so I thought you'd be interested in looking for yourself at http://www.remploy.co.uk/
They have employment offices (to find the disabled jobs elsewhere) in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but you'd have to follow their individual busineses on the "Remploy Businesses" link to figure out where the 83 factories are.
They report to the UK DWP.
Complain about this comment
239 Jimbrant
Having spent the last couple of days reading and in some instances replying to copious Jimbrant comments I have to say it has been most enlightening and enjoyable. Pleasantly, most peoples' comments have some sort of balance and at least a suggestion that will read / listen digest and perhaps consider another point of view. However, Jimbrant appears to have a completely closed mind to anything that remotely resembles disagreement with his/ her opinion, seemingly using peoples comments as a vehicle to respond and dictate. Are we sure Jimbrant is not a Downing Street advisor in disguise? Only Joking Jimbrant, just loosen-up a bit before you burst a blood vessel. We are all entitled to our respective opinions and dignified disagreement is what democracy is all about. Of course we don't much get the chance to have an opinion under New Labour so being able to voice an opinion on these blogs is a great stress buster!!!
Complain about this comment
Did anyone see Nick Clegg out himself as a Thatcherite on Sky News this morning?
He pointed out that Govt expenditure had risen from £300B in 1997 to £600B now and if elected he would reduce public spending by £20B IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!
Now that's exactly what our Dave should be saying!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Re #243 oldnat
Good point re Eden. Goes to show why the electorate should keep all politicians on a very short leash. I wonder if anyone has been counting how many of them have been hoist by their own FOI petard.
Re the &, I'm afraid you've essentially got Berners-Less, a Mancunian Englishman, to thank. Strictly speaking, it's allowable "raw" by most HTML browsers but here you're writing plain ASCII test which has to be converted to HTML by a parser that uses them for other purposes too.
Complain about this comment
#237 - jimbrant is entirely correct. From my location in Hungary, I meet many people who go to the UK to work. They do so for three reasons. Firstly it is genuinely the first preference because of a thirst for a working knowledge of English, secondly because of the perception of a pool of quite well paid jobs and thirdly because they believe they will be made reasonably welcome.
One thing they have in common, however, is that few intend to move permanently. If any of the above options are no longer available, they will go elsewhere or simply not go anywhere.
By the way, the likelihood of A8 immigrants becoming a burden on the Social Security system in great numbers is, in my view, minimal. It would defeat the whole object of going in the first place.
Complain about this comment
247:
somebody makes a completely one-sided erroneous argument lacking in any supporting evidence, and another replies with actual fact to demonstrate why they are wrong, and then labelled as closed minded? hardly fair!
Complain about this comment
#247 Billyblueeagle:
I don't object to anyone having an opinion that differs from mine. What I object to, and what I mainly post about, is when a poster confuses fact with opinion.
To take the Remploy discussion as an example, there is nothing whatever wrong with saying that the management proposals are objectionable/unworkable/uncompassionate. Those would be opinions, and while I would hope to see some rational argument to back them up I would have no problem with their expression. But when it is said as a fact that more than half the Remploy factories are to close by government 'diktat', and I happen to know that that is simply not the case, then there is no question of 'balance'. If something is factually false it is not a matter of opinion that it is false, and when it comes to facts I hope that I have indeed what you term a 'closed mind'.
Complain about this comment
Fairly Open. Said
"Nothing jobs". Come on. You know what I mean. A real job is something that delivers value to a private or public organisation. A nothing job is one created in order to get people into employment, or fulfill some company leader's fantasy.
If you want to claim a reduced employment level, you can invent a job such as "litter spotter" - somebody who walks around town and makes a note of every piece of litter. Then passes that on to the "litter spotter's manager" who records the information, with due regard for any existing legislation, and subsequently has the "litter spotter's technical assistant" to prepare the statistics needed to produce a government sponsored QANGO report. So we have three people paid for out of taxation to deliver no value. (Except to claim that these guys or gals are now employed. And to praise the work of the over-paid QANGO members, appointed by the government...)
IF such a situation existed it sounds like a "nothing job" but of course you've invented the above to try to make your point.
Wouldn't it have been easier to give an actual REAL example to make your point OR was that not actually possible?
I said earlier that the anti government posters had two tactics. (Not all to be fair).
1 Call names
2 Exagerate
Theres a third Just MAKE IT UP.
Complain about this comment
#246 and 249 Brownedov
Thanks. I couldn't possibly criticise any Macunian, since the blessed Sir Alex (who took Aberdeen to European glory) moved there.
#250 threnodio
While I wouldn't expect many of the Eastern/Central European workers in Scotland to remain long term, their presence has been enormously beneficial. That some have settled permanently is even better.
More importantly, the Open leaderboard suggests that Europe will continue to do well in the Ryder Cup.
Complain about this comment
228 fairlyopenmind
"...If you want to claim a reduced employment level, you can invent a job such as "litter spotter" - somebody who walks around town and makes a note of every piece of litter...."
Like broken glass, rotting food hanging out of torn bin bags attracting rats, flytipping etc. Excellent Idea what about the non jobs you speak of?
How dare they stop you dropping litter. Its against civil liberties. You should complain to your MP.
Complain about this comment
Re my #249
Oops.
Must have slumped comatose over the keyboard.
Not Berners-Less of course but Berners-Lee
Complain about this comment
Non-jobs
I don't know what happens in England but the Concordat between the Scottish Government and Local Authorities has meant that our LAs no longer need to employ people simply to crunch numbers to satisfy central government that ring-fenced funding is being appropriately used.
Sad for me - I used to make a good living out of my LA using me temporarily to crunch these numbers. For Scottish taxpayers, a significant benefit.
Complain about this comment
247 Billieblueeagle
"....Of course we don't much get the chance to have an opinion under New Labour so being able to voice an opinion on these blogs is a great stress buster!!!"
How exactly do you not get the chance to have an opinion under Labour? Looking at this and other BBC user generated content your comment seems a little bizarre.
If anything you have too much opportunity to voice opinions. Thats "If anything....." I'm not against your freedom of speech so there's no need to go crying to David Davis.
Complain about this comment
230 browndov,
"It could come back and bite him on the backside but being a Tory if that situation arises his reply will be"Ah! but this is not the same thing"."
Like Brown and Lisbon
No, nothing like Lisbon, a treaty was never promised on the treaty of Lisbon, whereas Cameron has now committed himself to a referendum on any change in the EU that will affect the UK.
I wonder if that will also apply to the Tory desire to gradually pull out of the EU.
Complain about this comment
#259 grandantidote
Has Cameron committed himself to a referendum on the EU if there is any variation to the Uk?
If the UK and the Isle of Man, or one of the Channel Islands votes for a Treaty of Union, as the Scots Parliament did in 1707, would he revisit the European treaties.
OK, I recognise this is a ludicrous post. Who, in their right minds would vote to associate themselves politically with England.
Complain about this comment
#255 dhwilkinson
You understand the problem I tried to address.
A "litter-picker-upper" would - and does - do something good and could report where and when he found the litter, as a by-product of the activity.
(As an ordinary citizen, I sometimes pick up stuff in the street and pop it into a public waste bin.)
The "litter spotter" I invented (though who possibly exists) would simply look at and record an apparent problem, rather than doing anything about it.
That's a non-job.
There are plenty in private companies (plcs) as well as in government. The problem is that we pay taxes to provide a lot of "non-jobs" in arms of government.
I surprised me when I found that there are 125 people from the government benches who hold minsterial/sub-ministerial rank. Therefore beholden to a PM and lobby-fodder.
No wonder parliament is such a complicit place.
Just wonder how many of those guys or gals qualify for "non-jobs".
Complain about this comment
There is a problem with the whole issue of referenda in the UK. A referendum is not something which sits comfortably in the parliamentary system and, while in practice, on the rare occasions when there has been one, the outcome has been respected, there is actually no obligation for parliament to accept the outcome. There will always be a tendency for governments to rule out a referendum if they were unsure of getting it through parliament.
If a question arises of such significance, it is my belief that the government of the day should formulate a policy then go to the country with it. That was what John Major did with Maastrict. It is true to say that both the other major parties were pro-Maastrict and the election was not in practice a referendum on that one subject but it did give the government the moral authority to face down their own rebels and ultimately drive it through.
The other problem with a referendum is that, superficially it may be the purist form of democracy but it is in fact the ultimate buck-passing exercise. A government can hardly be held to account for the outcome of a policy decision which was made directly by the people.
In the case of Lisbon, the government is committed to the process so a referendum leading to a No vote would leave them in a totally untenable position. A general election would be inevitable and render the referendum meaningless.
Worst of all, a referendum is about single issue politics which are inherently dangerous.
Complain about this comment
#260 - oldnat
"Who, in their right minds would vote to associate themselves politically with England."
Should we take it then that the Scots who currently run England are not in their right minds? Perish the thought!
Complain about this comment
#263 threnodio
Apologies to those who have seen similar comments before, but threnodio obviously needs to be updated.
Scots don't want to run England (eg SNP MPs don't vote on English-only matters in your Parliament). On the other hand, we bitterly objected to English MPs imposing your policies on us before devolution.
You obviously don't understand the real political dynamic
If your political identity is primarliy British, then the national (within the UK) origin of your Government members is unimportant.
If your political identity is primarliy English,
then I understand your pain, but the answer lies n yr own hands.
As a voter in Scotland, I can sympathise with your plight, but if you subscribe to "British" identity, your salvation is very difficult,
Complain about this comment
"I surprised me when I found that there are 125 people from the government benches who hold minsterial/sub-ministerial rank. Therefore beholden to a PM and lobby-fodder.
No wonder parliament is such a complicit place."
whats this? an anarchist? these are the people who make up the executive; the government. they run the country. would you prefer to have less than 125?
regards the non-job argument, public sector employment as a percentage of the workforce has stayed static since 1997 at around 19%. (dont take my word for it - i learnt this from david smith, economics writer at the times). this is despite increased numbers of policeman teachers nurses etc.
Complain about this comment
Re #259 grandantidote
"No, nothing like Lisbon, a treaty was never promised on the treaty of Lisbon"
True, but a referendum was!
I'm sorry for quoting a whole para below, but "The Labour Party manifesto 2005" of 11 April 2005 has long since either been removed from http://www.labour.org.uk/ or moved to an unreferenced location, which has much the same effect because the site has no search facility and no site map.
Pages 83 & 84 state: "The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence.The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
Given the chance, I might very well have voted 'Yes' but no UK voter has yet been given the option. Words need cautious use here as despite the formal ratification made last week, the matter is still with the courts and may ultimately be declared outwith UK or even European law.
No such document as "The new Constitutional Treaty" has ever existed. Having watched the debates in the House of Commons, the only genuine argument I heard from NuLabour was to the effect that what the manifesto actually meant was the draft "TREATY ESTABLISHING A Constitution for Europe" of 15 March 2005 and so when that fell neither the "DRAFT TREATY AMENDING THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY" of 23 July 2007 nor the "Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007" actually contained the words 'Constitutional' or 'Constitution' in their titles, irrespective of their content.
Whether this is enough to make their action legal, the courts may eventually decide but I suspect the original decision will be upheld which in my understanding effectively said: We needn't worry about the documents themselves because politicians' broken promises have no legal remedy.
Having read all 3 relevant documents, I believe that the furore over the shallowness of any difference will ensure that, at least, the next Tory government would have no choice but to honour a referendum or be cast into the wilderness to join your heros.
Please clarify how, and in what sense, Brown did not say "Ah! but this is not the same thing"
Complain about this comment
Re #262 threnodio
"The other problem with a referendum is that, superficially it may be the purist form of democracy but it is in fact the ultimate buck-passing exercise. A government can hardly be held to account for the outcome of a policy decision which was made directly by the people."
That's because our lords and masters have the whole process base over apex. Referenda are "granted" to us serfs to allow the politicians to pass the buck. Used properly, like Switzerland any group of about 2% of the relevant electorate demand and get a referendum on whatever topic they choose - a Sunday being set aside each quarter for communal (town), cantonal (county) and federal (national) referenda. There are high hurdles for their acceptance in terms of both population and cantons agreeing, but once those hurdles are attained the politicians obey their masters, the electorate.
The problem of our unwritten "constitution" is that it is in the hands of the politician to interpret and modify, making them the masters und us the slaves except for the odd, semi-democratic "all or nothing" vote about twice per decade, if they choose to allow it to us, at times of their choosing. There may be loose talk of "the mother of parliaments", but the National Government makes us the least democratic member of the old EC, if not the current EU.
Complain about this comment
265 moderateprogressive:
"regards the non-job argument, public sector employment as a percentage of the workforce has stayed static since 1997 at around 19%"
That's very interesting. I guess that the response from a number here would be that many of the jobs that they see as 'non-jobs' may not be counted as 'public sector'? Some/many Quangos for example?
It is difficult to make the public/private sector distinction I think. For example, one sector that I know quite well is higher education, which I suppose would be counted as public sector. But these days many of the staff in universities are not funded from public money, but from industry and business; and indeed many universities have their own commercial enterprises included within their structure. It varies a lot from university to university, but some I know have perhaps 30% of their staff who are doing entirely commercial jobs, in competition with other entirely commercial organisations.
In another sector, how are contract cleaners in hospitals counted I wonder?
Perhaps it all balances out in the end, but I have no idea whether it does.
Complain about this comment
Re #265 moderateprogressive
"would you prefer to have less than 125?"
Yes, muchly. A properly devolved UK would need a PM, a Finance Minister, a Foreign Minister and a Defence Minister. Add a couple of spares for odds and sods and you'd have a cabinet of 6. Give them each a bag carrier and you'd need 12 in all, in a federal chamber of about 100 MPs in total.
Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland already have the assemblies in place to take over all other functions. How many should be in an English Parliament is up to the electorate, but I'd have thought about 200 MEnPs would be plenty.
Complain about this comment
#264 - oldnat
I was being frivolous but you make a valid point.
I don't disagree with you but other parties are less scrupulous. Did you notice, for instance, that almost every Labour and LibDem member sitting for Scottish and Welsh seats, as well a Plaid Cmryu members and most NI members voted with the government to ban smoking in public places in England? It may well be a good thing for our health but, as example of democracy in action, it stinks.
I have not failed to grasp the political dynamic at all, I completely understand Scottish resentment with the pre-devolution arrangements and I doubt if you will find too many English people who have any problem with the devolution insofar as they relate to Scotland or elsewhere. The problem lies with the wholly credible perception that the English are now underrepresented and too easily legislated for in part by people who have no right to do so.
You are entirely right to suggest that this is a problem for those who see their identity as English but you will be unsurprised to see English nationalism finding its way into the mainstream agenda if the imbalances are not addressed.
I now live in continental Europe and I feel myself increasingly English and European but less British. My own view is that it is time to look to a genuinely federal solution which would address the concerns of people across all the regions and curtail the ever increasing concentration of power at Westminster.
Complain about this comment
comment 258 dhwilkinson
Now I have heard everything!! i.e. 'If anything we have too much opportunity to voice our opinions'. True Nanny State, good old humourless grey politic.
Comment 252. Jimbrandt.
Oh Dear, another lecture and metaphorical smacking. My bottom is getting quite sore so after this comment I am going to put a copy of the Daily Worker down my trousers.
Jimbrandt, I admire your thoroughness with regard your research but you should remember that most of the written word has a political bias of some sort and whatever ones political persuasion we do tend to gravitate towards that which suits our views best. My view on all of this is not about slanted information and statistics from whatever political quarter, it is how I find I am able to lead my life and what I see happening to my family and friends. Well, to reiterate, the society I now live in is awful, humourless and without ambition or direction. After going without for years to save and look after myself and my loved ones I find the Government is hell bent on taking me down to common demnominator level so that it can dole out a pittance to me and I will eke my life out not being able to afford the things for which I have worked over 50 years. Sorry Jimbrandt but whether is is New Labour, Tory, Communist I don't care. Like you I passionately believe in helping others and I have 40 years of unpaid committee work in several spheres of operation to prove that. What I cannot condone is the fact that after paying all my dues over 50 years a Government comes along and says 'you have too much, give us your 'wealth' (what a joke) and we will distrubute your money amongst the needy and then when you are flat broke we will help you as well. Particulalrly as Government Ministers and MP's in general are gorging themselves on Public money and making sure they are set for life by fixing their own pensions and accumulating property at my expense. Not to be in any way patronising Jimbrandt, you are obviously a person with a social conscience, but take a step back and ask yourself if this is fair. If you are honest I think you must conclude it is not. There must be fairer ways of looking after the GENUINE needy without taking disproportionately from those who have worked and saved hard all their lives ( after paying all taxes etc) to provide for themselves. e.g the super rich that New Labour chooses to ignore with regards taxes and the high profile business people of all political persuasions that have offshore accounts. I acknowledge Labour has some excellent and caring policies but Labour has barely a single Minister that has any real presence or anyone that has not come up through the Law, Unions or Student Politics. They have not got a clue, as can be seen from the billions of taxpayers money wasted. From where I sit and from what I see (not what I read in the 'papers) this new Labour administration is stotally flawed and completely incompetent. If anything ( although not practical I concede) the way forward is to take the best from all political factions and get them to efficiently administer the fairest policies so as to get this once great country back on its feet so to speak. New Labour can never do that because the prime individuals are more concerned with power and this is horrifically illustrated in the performance of their respective Ministries. e.g. Ed Balls,Straw, Jowell, Smith, and the hapless and stilted Harriet Harman to name but a few. You have only to look at Blair and his materialistic wife to see where New Labour is really coming from. Blair (with support from Brown and to its shame the Tory party ) took us into an illegal war and Blair has walked away to make millions whilst the rest of us, and primarily our poor soldiers, are trying to clean up his mess. This is not about names of politcal parties Jimbrandt it is about integrity, fairness and respect. Tell me, within the ranks of the political elite, where are any of these virtues? Sorry, but fair minded and sensible Socialism which I believe most of us want, will in my opinion not be found within the ranks of New Labour. They are champange Socialists, metaphorically in the clouds.
Complain about this comment
#267 - Brownedov
As usual, constructive and interesting.
However, the supremacy of parliament has been a central plank in our constitutional arrangements for two hundred years or so and referenda in which the outcome was binding would fly in the face of that.
Now if you are saying that you would rather MPs walked into the lobbies because the people tell them to rather than doing so like so many sheep every time the whips bark, I am with you all the way.
Actually, the whole system is creaking at the edges. The best solution in my mind would be an election resulting in a hung parliament, the price of being able to form an administration would be a commitment to proportional representation which would break the two party system. A revitalised parliament not subservient to an overbearing executive could then move to create a federal system fairly reflecting the rights and needs of all the regions.
Complain about this comment
The extraordinary truth of this situation is that almost everyone in the country can do a bit to turn the economy around. Basically we need to become more welcoming and friendly to foreign visitors, so they are happy to spend plenty of money here.
We need to look at everything we buy. Whilst there was a boom in new homes, those of us who bought them were feeding the British economy as the labour and some of the materials were from within the British Isles and the developers and builders were a home grown industry.
Another instance is that, it has always been a better bet for the British economy to use the printer down the road than to send the printing job to the far east. This is because, there is a cost to the environment to sending it abroad and we jeopordise our own printing expertise and local employment opportunities.
Unfortunately in the 1970s and the 1980s it was considered good business to import goods, slap a British company's label on in and sell it with a good mark up. This business practice has lingered into the 21st century... even some of our innovative vacuum cleaners are made abroad.
This, I believe, has insidiously undermined the diversity of our labour market and expertise and opportunities for young people.
It is even the case that a few young people can only see a properous future for themselves in a negative direction... in being able to supply a demand for illegal drugs or weapons, whilst their young compatriots in the forces fight, get hurt or are even killed in Afghanistan in an attempt to halt the supply of those same drugs.
Like "Candide" we have taken to cultivating our own gardens because there is so much to put right.
But my point, if you have taken the trouble to read the above argument, is that, with a little thought, there may be a way we can all help to boost our home economy in a small way.
We can choose to buy as many things as possible made here. If we meet visitors from abroad, we can help to make them feel welcome and praise our country when we go abroad. We can avoid buying illegal substances off a street corner or "off a lorry".
Those of you ridiculing all this, I beg you please think.
The things you complain about, the gridlocked traffic, the late trains, dirty streets, the Government, etc etc...
Rather than complain is there not something you can do about all this even in a small way?
Complain about this comment
271 Billyblueeagle
What a refreshing tract you have just written! No, I'm not being sarcastic, it is excellent and should be required reading for all government officials and civil servants. I do not agree with all your points, but then I am not looking for a mirror image of my own opinions, and don't judge something to have value because it points out things with my point of view. For example, I supported Blair's sending the UK to war to remove a dictator, whereas you see it from a different angle. I especially appreciate your disgust at the corruption and greed of those who go under the name of socialists. The materialism and lack of personal or public morality of those supposed to be serving us is horrific. Unfortunately, such behaviour manifests itself in all political parties, but the socialists have supporters who wear blinkers. I believe these supporters are genuinely decent people, who truly believe the platitudes they spout. The socialism they claim to support died decades ago, and the present government is not even a poor shadow of them, nor even of the tory party. They more resemble a collection of unpleasant characters, familiar to viewers of old-time cinema. Greedy small town officials who have risen by corruption and scratching the right backs. To finish on a cheap note, the most aptly named one who is representative of this sorry crew is Ed Balls.
Complain about this comment
This is now beyond a bit of political banter. I'm seriously concerned about my little nest egg in the bank while the country runs a debt of 555 billlion. I'm considering the old trick of hiding it under the bed springs.
Complain about this comment
# 270
A tiny footnote in yesterdays Sunday Times points to the politicial 'future' (sic) of the so-called 'United Kingdom'.
"The SNP have decided to hold the referendum on full Scottish independence in November 2010, during the week of St. Andrews Day."
That is, at the moment of maximum opportunity for a 'yes' vote, following on from a Tory Administration arriving at Westminster the previous May.
The die has now been cast and a new political beginning for the English, Scots and Welsh is in sight.
Meanwhile, the UK band plays on.
Complain about this comment
271 Billyblue eagle
I wrote in praise of your posting, but got carried away when describing the present generation of politicians - hence I've been muzzled. Basically, I wrote saying I liked your posting, not because it was a mirror image of my views, I don't want to join a mutual admiration society! I agreed with Blair going to war, in contradiction to your opinion, but I share your concern at the lack of morality and the greed and materialism so prevalant. I think those who praise Nu Labour, are basically good people, but wear blinkers and are living in the distant past when idealists were more common as leaders than small-town officials who have made it by scratching the right backs.
Complain about this comment
Re #272 threnodio
I agree with you pretty much 100%.
My only quibble is that the reason "supremacy of parliament has been a central plank in our constitutional arrangements" since the 1690s is because that supremacy was taken from the crown by the Whig & Tory gentry who controlled parliament. The people have never been consulted on this and politicians have been reluctant to ask them.
We don't have a written constitution because parliament would have little choice but to put it to the people, which they are invariably reluctant to do.
I totally agree with your last para on electoral reform and am just sad that the NuLabour implosion looks likely to hand the next election to Cameron on a plate, at least in England, making a hung parliament unlikely.
When this thread was young and callow, I shared my thoughts on what could and should have happened in '97 had Manifesto promises been implemented. See the last para of my #199.
Complain about this comment
260 oldnat, Cameron sunday Andrew Marr show.
Complain about this comment
Re #276 JohnConstable
"That is, at the moment of maximum opportunity for a 'yes' vote, following on from a Tory Administration arriving at Westminster the previous May."
You could be right, but I'd be wary of reading too much into the views of the London media or even the Scottish unionist media like the Scotsman.
My own take is that with the NuLabour implosion continuing, Salmond would probably prefer the referendum to be before the general election, but he's determined to honour his manifesto commitment to hold it in 2010 if only to prevent being labelled a liar like Brown.
Ask yourself "qui bono?" from a referendum just after a new Tory govt comes in and you may, like me, feel that Cameron couldn't lose from it.
If it fails, he'll have some good spin ready about the strength of the union and the recovery of the Tories in Scotland. If it loses, he can say "it wasn't me, guv" when he becomes the first PM of England and avoid the stigma among his party faithful of being "the unionist who broke the union".
Complain about this comment
Re #279 grandantidote
Cameron mentioned nothing on the Marr show about referenda in the event of the UK changing, which was oldnat's point, I think.
Complain about this comment
# 280
Who benefits (Cui bono)?
Is always a useful question.
AFAIC, it is win-win.
The Scots get their country back and so do we English.
Moreover, the Scots get a full Government that is naturally aligned to Scottish aspirations i.e. of a broadly Socialist flavor.
And the English get 'Dave' and chums.
But I do not suppose we English will be satisfied with that situation for too long and political 'competitors' will soon appear in England.
Roll on 2010.
Complain about this comment
266 Browndov, I am quite sure that you know that I meant "a Referendum" not a treaty but your quite right to pull me up on that point, I'm afraid it was getting near my bedtime when I wrote that but you knew exactly what I meant as indicated in the rest of your text.
Our opinions differ about the difference between what was accepted by the Tories as the constitional Treaty,which when France and Holland voted no they shouted from the roof tops the constitional treaty is dead in the water.
This phrase was used many times in the HP by not one but many Tory MPs.
So a new treaty was drawn up, the Lisbon treaty, I am not going to argue here on the difference between them as we have been through that many times on these blogs.
There was no referendum promised on the Lisbon treaty, full stop it can be twisted this way and that way as much as anybody wishes to but in my opinion and millions of others there was no promise of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, many of you will be there with fingers twitching trying to prove me wrong but as many of you that are, there are a equal number who agree with me.
To get to the nitty gritty of the difference in my statement, in my opinion GB never promised a referendum on the other hand David Cameron has promised on the Andrew Marr show that any change in the EU that affects the UK he will hold a referendum, he has put himself into a absurd position and it will come back and bite him on the backside.
If he sticks to his word we could be having a referendum on a monthly basis, when that situation arises he will say " Ah! but this is not the same thing".
My feelings to referenda I have expressed several times on these blogs,Tony Blair should never have promise a referendum on the contitional treaty, it should have been something that should have been thrashed out in parliament as should all matters of state, referendums are allright for local issues where the residents are quite aware of the consequences and results but elected MPs should debate and vote on matters of state, thats why we put them there.
Complain about this comment
Re #282 JohnConstable
Thanks for the correction - my Latin is much rustier than my Spanish, so I seem to have a built in tendency to replace the "c" with a "q".
You may feel that it will be win/win now, but I fear that in understandably running away from NuLabour at last they will also be running away from a golden opportunity to address the real constitutional problems of the UK in general and England in particular.
Whilst Scotland and Wales will probably go their own way, a Tory landslide will make no fundamental change in the "lunatics running the asylum" approach to English politics of both currently large parties.
Complain about this comment
281 browndov, you say that,
"Cameron mentioned nothing on the Marr show about referenda in the event of the UK changing, which was oldnat's point, I think."
218 What I said was
I am afraid that I did forget Cameron did make a commitment on the EU treaty, If it isnt ratified by the time he gets into power then he will hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, that was a pretty easy one for him dont you think, considering that the earliest he could be there is 2010 by which time it will have long been ratified our abandoned.
He did say that in future if he's in power any treaties involving the EU, he will hold a referendum. That'll be a Tory first"
260 oldnat wrote,
Has Cameron committed himself to a referendum on the EU if there is any variation to the Uk?
279 I said,
Cameron sunday Andrew Marr show.
220 Jimbrandt said,
Yes, that was the most (perhaps only) interesting thing he had to say, and I wonder what exactly it meant. Would there have to be a treaty to allow Turkey's membership, for example? -
I admit that I don't know the position on that.
I find that what you have to say a little odd, are you saying that Cameron didn't say whats written here because if you are then I suggest you try to find out what he did say because you obviously didn't watch the show or you weren't concentrating on your hero.
Complain about this comment
The is much water to pass under the bridge before any Scottish Referendum, and it is not a foregone conclusion.
Much of the Scottish resentment that was focused on the Union was in fact a mixture of petty nationalism (ie a feeling that Scotland was somehow emasculated by not being able to represent itself internationally) and a Reverse West Lothian, when English MP's were seen to be imposing policies on Scotland against the will of the people. The only real example of this was the Poll Tax, which was in fact a rebellion of the social consequences of the Thatherite restructuring. We can argue all day long about whether the restructuring was a result of previous government policies, but it doesn't matter anymore. Devolution has drawn the sting, and while there is an itch that is scratched, it is as much out of habit rather than genuine discomfort.
DC has managed to detox the brand in England, and some of that has spilt over into Scotland. His arrival for the Glasgow East by-election was not treated with derision. Annabel Goldie has followed a pragmatic policy of contructive engagement with the SNP government, and has won many plaudits. Meanwhile, Labour indulged in student politics that has contributed to thier meltdown. Read some of the posts on blogs elsewhere, and you will see a view that an SNP / Tory coalition would be good for Scotland. What that indicates to me is that the Tories are beginning to be taken seriously and the Thatcher bogey is beginning to lose its' power. It also indicates that the Scots are happy with a Scottish focus on domestic issues, but it does not mean that they want independence.
There are many other hurdles. Many in Scotland see independence as a move towards a republic, which does not have the same level of support. The current devolution settlement is not the final one. We all need more local control of the things that matter to us. Elected mayors should be the default position everywhere. Local representatives of national parties should be allowed and encouraged to pursue key local issues. The more effective local government is on local issues, the less likely people are going to want to give up the mutal support that exists in a wider union.
Complain about this comment
#271 Billyblueeagle :
That is all very interesting. I might even agree with a few (a very few, as it happens)bits of it. But what has it got to do with my #252? And how can you complain about my 'lecture', and then submit such a post?
Complain about this comment
Re #283 grandantidote
For once, we almost agree, but I think you misunderstood my question.
We obviously disagree over Lisbon, but for now that doesn't matter. Thanks to the Irish it will probably come back to haunt NuLabour but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I do agree that there may be wriggling by the Tories when it comes to Cameron's "Marr moment", but that's for the future too.
My question was not about the Tories but concerned your beloved Supreme Leader. You may well have believed it inappropriate for the Bliar Brown axis to have made the manifesto commitment, but they did. So how do you justify your position that Brown did not say "Ah! but this is not the same thing" over Lisbon?
Complain about this comment
283 to browndov, I am sorry but I seem to be having a mental block on the word constitutional please delete all other crazy examples of the spellingand any other spelling mistakes
Complain about this comment
Re #285 grandantidote
I did watch the Cameron interview and have just watched it again thanks to the full interview being available on the Cameron not rejecting tax rises web page at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7516046.stm
There's also a full transcript on the Tory tax policy web page at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/7515946.stm
After re-listening and reading the transcript carefully, I can say with some confidence that Cameron only promised referenda concerning transfers of power to the EU, and Marr asked no specific questions regarding possible referenda re transfers of power within the UK.
I'm surprised that you think Cameron is my hero and a glance at my #284 or many of my other comments should convince you otherwise. It's hard to name any heros in the current House of Cards, but Cable, Teather, Salmond and Marshall-Andrews would all probably make the shortlist. On the Tory benches there are a number, like Davis whom I respect but none even close to the shortlist.
Possibly I've misunderstood where you quotes end and your comments begin, in which case I apologise in advance.
Complain about this comment
Re #286 Wopitt
You make a number of good points, and I agree with many of them, although I think the current status of many is "not proven" in the eyes of the Westminster village.
Personally I fully support your statement that "The current devolution settlement is not the final one."
I do fear that Cameron doesn't really accept that and will likely let Scotland and, later, Wales go their own ways rather than propose meaningful solutions to solve the problem within the union.
Complain about this comment
271 billyblueeagle.
Thanks for proving my point, With your massive unreadable comment. You do have too much opportunity to put across a point of view and too much opportunity to misquote me. Most of what you say is fantasy anyway. Did you explain in that massive novel of a comment. why you cannot have an opinion under labour? Like you said in comment 247.
".....Of course we don't much get the chance to have an opinion under New Labour so being able to voice an opinion on these blogs is a great stress buster!!!
Complain about this comment
# 284/286
Full Scottish independence is certainly not, at this stage, a foregone conclusion.
As you have pointed out, there is a tiny window for the 'Dave' and the Scottish Tories to create something that might assuage the Scots.
Goldie and Rifkind seem highly capable politicians but I still think that the 'flow' will go with the Nats on this one.
I am hoping so, because the English are incredibly apathetic when it comes to politics.
It is hard for me to gauge this because I do not live in Scotland and am English but I understand that there is a fair loathing of the Tories up there in Eton Tory speak 'ghillie Jocko-land'.
Anyway, down here in England I hear that off-the-record, politicians at Westminster are amazed at how far the English are prepared to be abused - in the political sense!
Not for much longer, I hope.
Complain about this comment
Re #292 dhwilkinson
For once I agree with you. The point was not adequately made.
Last week's Herald article: Labour conference is scrapped to cut costs reports the party line quite responsibly, but the comments make billyblueeagle's point well. My personal favourite was:
"Good news for Brown. This means that there won't be a Party Conference where he is heckled at. Mind you, in 10 days times, he might not be there as Party Leader."
For more, see http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2397801.0.labour_conference_is_scrapped_to_cut_costs.php
Complain about this comment
Re #293 JohnConstable
Good analysis. What I fail to understand but wish I could is why the Conservative & Unionist Party talks the talk about wanting to preserve the union but, if Clarke's feeble attempt at solving the West Lothian question is anything to go by, they have nothing to offer to save it.
The other two main unionist parties are fairly clear on what they want: The LibDems want full, democratic devolution for England while NuLabour want to rehash their failed regional policy to divide and rule as before.
Are the Tories just saying they're unionist to keep their party faithful happy while Scotland solves the problem for them by seceding or do they really believe in it?
Complain about this comment
comment 277 phoenixarien
I think most of us are agreed on what this country needs. i.e less politics and more competent management. Obviously if one is a home owner and has a good job, pension etc. one cannot expect a poor person with no prospects to have any sympathy over inheritance tax etc. Of course this is the real problem is it not. How does one create FAIR legislation whilst catering for human nature. How does one reward those who work hard and are self suffient whilst looking after those less fortunate? I think that FAIR taxation is the answer but in my humble opinion Labour is just socially engineering the population. e.g. A house owning Pensioner goes to prison for non payment of council tax. In the Labour heartlands (read voters) millions of pounds are owed and little attempt is made to collect this huge outstanding sum. Of course it cannot be collected because so many are on benefits and have no money. Hence the rest of us must make up the shortfall with what is another 'stealth tax'. This just breeds hostilty and resentment, is very divisive and it totally suits Labours class card policy. I totally agree with you that NU Labour supporters, although very sincere, are back in the old 'Mill Owner' days. They continue to berate the Tories for 'wrecking' our heavy industries which employed so many. As one whose family suffered immensly due to this I can more than sympathise especially as whole communities almost ceased to function. The Tories actually had many of the same world wide problems as Gordon Brown has now. Yes, the old fashion style Tories did do a lot of damage to the working class but the Tories did not as party single handedly wreck our textile, coal, car, steel shipbuilding, textile and paper industries, it was cheap prices of emerging economies'. We as a country could not / failed to adapt as the change came so fast and the rest is history. Sadly I think it was the fault of Management and Unions collectively for failing to recognise the threat and act effectively. What I think many people now see from the behaviour of the likes of the ultimate class warrior John Prescott is that Labour politicians, when in power, are no different to the Tory politicians that Prescott berated so vociferously. When it come to the crunch Prescott, infidelity included, was every bit as bad as the Tory counterparts whose resignation he constantly demanded. Of course New Labour Ministers' rarely fall on their swords, they just brazen everything out and say sorry, it was pressure of work . This is obviously an oversimplification but the thread is there isn't it? Anyway I am glad you agreed with a few of my points. I have taken such a pasting from Jimbrandt that I am now beating a hasty retreat and going off to convalesence with a copy of the Beano and some sherbert lemon and watch a John Wayne film. Bring back the old days eh!!!!
Complain about this comment
287 Jimbrandt
As you have said you agree just a tiny bit with some of the things I have e mailed I am resting on my laurels and quitting whilst I am ahead. It has been most interesting - best regards
Complain about this comment
Browndov
I would be amazed if the Conservatives are really going to give up on Scotland and Wales. The consequences of a full break up of the Union would reverbarate around the world. The permanent seat on the security council and the effect on the balance of power in the EU just for starters. It should be pretty clear in any objective analysis that while devolving control to different levels in the Union is a good thing, a break up would be catastrophic for us all.
It seems likely that Labour is going to be trounced in England by the Conservatives, and by the SNP in Scotland. This will give DC significant opportunity to influence the debate. If he can resolve the WLC and thus create a new status for the UK Government, combined with offering up increased devoltion in England and to the Scottish Parliament he will be able to create a new Union without the need to wait for Salmond and the SNP.
Furthermore, by pushing devolution to a truly local level, he will be able to outflank the SNP who seem content to ensure that devolution stops at Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
Re #298 Wopitt
That's what I've been hoping he would start to do for about a year, but if anything he seems to be moving away from it with Clarke's newly watered-down proposals on the "English votes" issue.
I roundly condemn the LibDems for choosing Lisbon over democracy and truth, but they still have quite a bit some common ground with the Tories over NuLabour's authoritarianism.
If Cameron wanted to, he could forge a pact with the LibDems now to pledge a constitutional convention to replace the current devolution mess with symmetric devolution for all and possibly save the union by going far enough to head off a pro-independence vote in the Scottish referendum. The price would have to be some kind of fairer voting system for Westminster - perhaps similar to the French or London mayoral majority systems, but it would virtually guarantee he would be PM in 2010 with a real chance of saving the union.
I suspect that the rub is that he believes he can get an overall majority on the 1872 plurality system and will go for broke at the general election without caring too much about the consequences for the union.
Complain about this comment
290 Browbdov,You say
I can say with some confidence that Cameron only promised referenda concerning transfers of power to the EU,
How does that differ from below
He did say that in future if he's in power any treaties involving the EU, he will hold a referendum.
Complain about this comment
No 299 Browndov
I think that your final paragraph is the most telling. DC does not need to strike a deal with the LD in England - at least not just now. If he needs LD support after the next election, there will be time enough to strike a bargain.
If the Union were to be dissolved, rather than re-engineered, then the next PM has the most to lose. I am sure that letting the Union wither or die is not his intention - I hope that it is not the outcome.
I can understand why the Conservatives are not trumpeting their plans for Scotland, as they would only be seen as an imposed English solution. DC has to lead the way by supporting devolution in principle everywhere, and in practice in areas where the Conservatives have popular support. By doing so he will be able to highlight the centralising tendancy of the SNP and move the arguement onto ground of his own choosing.
Complain about this comment
Re #300 grandantidote
The whole point goes back to one phrase of your #259 which says: "Cameron has now committed himself to a referendum on any change in the EU that will affect the UK"
oldnat's 260 wan't challenging the EU bit but the UK bit, because any change in what constitutes the UK must affect the EU. Repeal of the Act of Union would affect the EU if only because no EEC, EC or EU member state has yet divided into two, Czechoslovakia having split up before joining as two separate states.
My understanding and reading of the Cameron interview by Marr was that Cameron was only offering a referendum in the event of changes from the centre rather than changes in ourselves. I haven't yet re-read the EU treaties to check what the procedure is when a member state divides and don't even know if there is a process specified, but Cameron certainly needs to brush up on it as it could come into force soon after he becomes PM in 2010.
Complain about this comment
Re #301 Wopitt
I don't say it can't be done, just that there will be precious little time between the election and the Scottish referendum for Cameron to convince the potentially revolting Scots that he has a realistic plan that they will prefer and that the Westminster parliament will implement it PDQ.
Remember that Salmond and the SNP will have been in government for 3 years by then, with the main opposition coming from increasingly worried NuLabour MSPs wondering if they will go the way of their MP fellows in the 2011 Holyrood elections. In those circumstances the SNP will be mugs if they let go their current popularity, and Salmond's no mug.
Cameron will have to offer something better than Bliar-style promises to compete but if he only starts building after a May 2010 election there'll be precious little substance to offer. Goldie is no fool and will surely be telling Cameron something along these lines but I'm not convinced he will listen to her and likely no Scottish seats at Westminster to be won.
Complain about this comment
Re my earlier blog #137 about the current economic situation and the relationship to 1928/29 please jote the following.
Many individuals say something along the lines of 'we have more hospitals, newly built schools, doctors, nurses, teachers, etc.' however the relationship to 1928 is primarily as follows.
We can't afford them. Schools built on PFI will require huge sums to be used, from revenue, not capital. That is where the con is. The revenue is reducing so how can they be paid for.
To historians the soldiers and sailors sacrificed themselves in WWI for what exactly. They were sold down the river in the war to end all war. As Homer would say DOH!W
What happened to the poor sods, they came home and got what? They were sold down the river by reparations, they expected pensions and where did that go, DOH!
Homes fit for heroes, or was that WWII, or Great War II as it should really be termed. What happened to them. It is no wonder that there was the Invergordon mutiny, well now the soldiers are deserting in substantial numbers, not in the old way but buying themselves out or saying I'm not accepting that posting, what you going to do about it, take me to court? DOH!
Why do you think you rarely hear an injured soldier complain anymore, because he would lose his entitlement to compensation. Same with many of the families, don't say anything detrimental because of the honour of the regiment or you too may lose any compensation. Everythings great, everything is rosey, morale is high and we really like sitting in some God foresaken airport training people who will start a civil war as soon as we and the Americans leave ! The game is up the Chinese and the Russians are running rings around us. What a disaster the middle east is! DOH!
Complain about this comment
302 browndov, I dont think for one moment he was refering to the break up of the union. that would have been a own goal .
I certainly was not thinking along those lines but I see your point it could become very messy believe it or not but if I thought it would save the union, then I would not mind Cameron having a crack at running the country and your quite aware of how much I would hate that.
Complain about this comment
Wopitt Browndov et al
Why should a disolution of the 'Union' be a catastrophy for the people's of England Scotland or Wales?
I can certainly see why it would be a total catastrophy for certain politicians at Westminster, who would lose seats at worst, and power and status at best.
The 'British layer of bureaucracy will evaporate leaving just the individual nations and the EU.
Would it really matter if 'we' {the politicians} had to give up a seat at the UN Security Council, especially when we cannot even supply our own military with enough decent kit.
'Dave' and his chums will probably have a neligible or non-existent presence in Scotland and Wales after the next General Election.
So I think that the ' ... and Unionist Party' tag is just paying lip-service and not really something that 'Dave' is going to lose a lot of sleep over.
Complain about this comment
Re #306 JohnConstable
I for one don't think it would be a catastrophe, but I would prefer it to be maintained in a renewed form to provide some economies of scale and more democratic structures for all.
The 3 smaller countries already have much more democratic accountability than England and would be quite viable as EU members in their own right, although N. Ireland might feel a little nervous and sooner or later would have a referendum on incorporation into Eire.
England would probably struggle on with its outmoded 19th century semi-democracy for much longer. Possibly once it lost half its armed forces, the nuclear deterrent and much of the north sea oil and gas fields it would learn to cut its coat accordingly and end up with a smaller government.
I tend to agree that Cameron probably doesn't care too much about the above but I suspect his party may take a different view once it starts to sink in and the Union Flag is ceremonially torn to shreds.
Complain about this comment
Dear all
The current forecasts from the financial markets are for a deficit in the range of £50 Billion to £60 Billion in the current financial year.
That is getting on for £2,000 per earning person. That is scandalous and not defendable - as well as not sustainable.
In our own household budgets we could not plan for a £2,000 deficit.
I abhor the Government spending so much on our money to store up problems for tax payers for years to come.
Excluding health professionals and teachers, at least 10 per cent of all public sector jobs could be shed.
Please, please, please, please can all political commentators start stressing the fact that Government spending has to fall. That is now the number one Government priority - working out where to cut.
Forget higher taxes - the public cannot pay more than at present. Forget higher borrowing - or forget it on a large scale anyway. Too high a price will be required. So spending it cuts it is. The Government simply has no choice - whatever its persuasion. It's about time it put spin in the bin and came clean on this.
Prudence - what a joke. An expensive joke. Prudence went in the bin in Gordon Brown's commons statement in July 2000 when he announced medium term plans. It has been unsustainable from that moment onwards.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
302 brownndov so your one of the 1 in 20,000 who have read the Lisbon treaty and also one of the 1 in 50,000 that have read the constitutional treaty, you are a clever boy and you have earned my admiration for that.
Now you would have been entitled to have a vote had there been a referendum.
Complain about this comment
comment 292 dhwilkinson
Thank you for being so gracious about my honest, if by your high standards my puny efforts to put my view across. I would have thought, however illerate my scribe, a man of your great itellect and politcal understanding could easily have deciphered what I was trying to say. As always, hard Labout left wing comment such as yours is without charm, dignity, manners, is dictatorial and like a punch in the face.
If you could lower yourself to read the Daily Mail today there is an article about people such as yourself. The article relates to Margaret Thatcher and the hateful comments printed in the Guardian by the so called Liberal hard left. i.e. they cannot except anyone sees the world differently to themselves and any one who does must be a monster, racist or from another planet.
I read your, and others comments, and try to understand your views if not agree with them. The underlying spitefulness of your reply to my comments says everything about the Liberal hard left, of whom I suspect you are a fully paid up member. What saddens me more than anything is the continual claims by the hard left is that they are democratic. We have had eleven years of socialist 'democracy' and the social fabric of our country is in ruins. I am really too old to worry but I have children and Grandchildren and I do fear for them
Sorry again for not being up to scratch. I will try harder in the future to be worthy of you reading anything I write.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #309 grandantidote
Not such a boy any more and certainly not as clever as I was before the little grey cells started deteriorating. I do confess to being a bit of a politics junkie, though. Sad, really.
Complain about this comment
#310 Billyblueeagle
Yet again I write to comment on one of your postings. I agree completely with your remarks in this instance, finding it most unpalatable how the miserable supporters of the left (as they view it) spitefully attack anybody who has views different to themselves. These bullies are the true rascists in the world today, they use political correctness by controlling and restricting everyone else. Disagree with them, and you are accused of everything from rascism, to having a Double Size E, Extra XX Large Carbon footprint. Their rudeness and crassness brings disrepute to this blogging board. Don't let it get you down, and remember, they are behaving like the old Lord Redesdale (the Mitfords' father) called Swines and Sewers!
Complain about this comment
312browndov Your probably similar to myself in some respects,I'm not a boy any more but I do somtimes get called old boy, I dont know whether thats a good thing or bad.
I am also a bit of a political junkie but I dont base my conception of politics on statistics as many here do only to be challenged by a equally convincing set of statistics, ad infinitum. pretty boring stuff and convincing only to those that write them .
What I write is based on a long lifetime of experience and observations some may agree with me some may not thats their prerogative their perception of whats happened in their lifetime will almost certainly be different to mine, if we had no difference of opinion on here then the would be no point in writing.
I consider this to be a old mans/womans forum, its not going to change a thing but its fun to think that it might.
Complain about this comment
106. Eatonrifle
You said
I may be wrong burt arent "public sector" pensions paid for by the actual employees paying a hefty contribution from their wages into a fund which is invested to make more money etc, Contributions paid over about 40 years?
I never realised they were a "gift" from the taxpayer. Well blow me sideways, what you learn on here!
Well Sir you are very wrong, the contributions by employees do not even begin to cover the final salary scheme.
If they did there would be no fuss about it.
Complain about this comment
310
I'm not signed up to a left wing party, but I accept I am left wing in relation to you. I understand now what you were saying about not being allowed a point of view under Labour. you are talking about political correctness. You want to be allowed to be racist and sexist. I think you'll find all the main parties now have the same problem for you in the 21st century. Time travel may be your only option.
I don't think I will read the Daily Mail thanks. No matter what they give away with it. If I had to buy it for someone I would ask for it to be put in a brown paper bag and if a group of women approached me and one of them said you've got a Daily Mail in there haven't you. Rather than admit it, I would rather say "No its a porn mag."
Stupid articles about some people wishing Margaret Thatcher dead being the reason. Im sure there are others who wish Blair or Brown dead. Both groups are idiots.
I don't wish anyone dead and object to being stereotyped by Papers like the Daily Mail and the right wing Maggie worshippers that read them.
I'm not a right wing hate filled loony is another reason I won't be reading it.
313 phoenixarisen. Racists are the true racists of today.
Complain about this comment
316 D H Wilkinson, once again you have expressed my views to perfection but with much more finesse than I could hope to achieve.
It's strange that practically all supporters of Labour[not paid up members necessarily] have very similar views which implies consistancy unlike tories who seem to dream up somr new story to tell on a daily basis.Quite a lot in the way the Daily Mail does.
I read the other day on one of these blogs someone wrote if it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it is a duck,this reminded me of an old farmer that I once knew, he said when ducks starts to cross a road they just keeps going and you know how you stand'
If chickens start to cross the road they fly up in the air in panic and you dont know where the hell there going to go.
I thought thats just like the labour bloggers
we are the ducks that can be relied upon to think alike and stick to our guns and the Tories are like the chickens no policies no guidance and havent a clue where there going.
Complain about this comment
Those articles about wishing Mrs Thatcher ill were in relation to a proposed State Funeral and came from far left Socialist readers of The Guardian as well as Guardian columnists themselves. When I tried to air them on here they were perceived to be so vile that they were moderated off the board. As for all The Labour bloggers on here being consistent and all Tory bloggers either manic or completely inconsistent don't make me laugh! There are bad and good exponents of differing views on all sides. There are unfortunately a minority of abusive commentators from all the major parties on here who give their cause a bad name.
Complain about this comment
317
"we are the ducks that can be relied upon to think alike..."
otherwise known as sheep?
Complain about this comment
# 307 Brownedov
Once full independence is achieved, I think it may act as a profound catalyst for England.
I do not particularly expect the English people to necessarily wake up from their political torpor but I do think that English politicans will simply find it easier to 'get things done'.
Because the inherent contradictions between the political aspirations of the English vis-a-vis the 'other' countries in the Britain, particularly the Scots, will have been delineated by devolution into full independence.
PS. I expect the SNP will finish a strong second in Glasgow East. Which is good, as Brown must be kept in place for the time being. It has been pointed out that nobody with a surname of 'Mason' (SNP) would be expected to win in a staunchly Catholic constituency.
Complain about this comment
320:
reading your post, i found it interesting but im not sure exactly what you meant by: 'inherent contradictions between political aspirations' ; 'their political torpor'. could you explain what you mean?
Complain about this comment
Re #320 JohnConstable
I hope you're right but won't be holding my breath.
Re 'Mason', you'd think so, but he was the only "pro-life" candidate on the Politics Show debate and the local RC bishop has given him his blessing, so I think he's got that problem cracked.
Whether he wins or not will likely depend on how many of the "vote for a monkey with a red rosette" brigade NuLabour can persuade to turn out.
Complain about this comment
318 waldorf, is the the last comment of Browndov 332 the sort of comment your refering too?
Complain about this comment
I have a brilliant mind but I haven't quite yet mastered reading the future. We haven't reached post 332 yet but if the cap fits it's for others to decide.
Complain about this comment
319 what the why , well there you are I cant take the mick out of the afflicted and if you dont know the difference between ducks and sheep your definately afflicted
Complain about this comment
342 Waldorf, there you go waldorf you found a little chink in my armour didn't you
I would have thought with that brilliant mind you would have had enough nous to look at 322 after seeing that 332 wasn't there, I know that you've had a bit of trouble with your eyes but you seem to see everthing else alright.
So I ask again is the the last comment of Browndov 322 the sort of comment your refering too?
Complain about this comment
Re #323 grandantidote
I lived in a rural Cheshire constituency in the '70s where the term "vote for a cow with a blue rosette" was in vogue for some years and probably true despite the sitting MP having been the wrong gender.
In Gladstone's day there were no doubt similar jibes concerning yellow rosettes.
The term "vote for a monkey with a red rosette" was used merely because it has achieved some popularity on recent "Blether with Brian" threads for obvious reasons.
Anyone who votes for a particular party in a particular constituency without considering the issues, the candidates and the likely winner in our quasi-democracy deserves our contempt.
Complain about this comment
325,
I can tell the difference between ducks and sheep. I was just wondering why someone was so proud of follwing a herd mentality, whilst castigating other people for having individuality in their thought processes.
Complain about this comment
326:
I repeat if the cap fits and you are not immune from scrutiny my big friend.
Complain about this comment
326:
Of course I saw it. Where's your sense of humour. Lighten up.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #327
grandantidote
To show you how broadminded I am, I'd probably vote for Marshall-Andrews if I lived in his constituency in Kent, but it would depend on who his opponents were.
Complain about this comment
327 browndov, and of course you didn't mean the slightest offence to the Labour candidate did you.
331 bob marshall andrews although living in Wales is one of the labour traitors who in my opinion is welcome to come to your constituency any time but as a conservative not in the disguise of a Labour MPas he is doing at the moment. his sort we can do without. Thats obviously why you like him so much.
Complain about this comment
329/330 I dont know where "if the cap fits wear it comes from. and in your case waldorf I am quite aware that i'm not immune from scrutiny you have used quite a few posts under both pseudonyms to embarress me as you will recall.
I had thought that by saying a chink in my armour would have indicated to you that I was being light hearted had I not have been I would have replied in much stronger terms.
Nevertheless you still haven't answered my question, but I guess Browndove's rather poor excuse will be the stock answer.
What happened to your trip to Greece I thought you were off on a cruise, with all the problems you say you've had I think you probably deserve a decent holiday.Relax all this nonsense doesn't mean a thing .
Complain about this comment
333:
He's off on Monday for 3 weeks. Crete, Rhodes and Patmos. I'm going with him to take in the delights of The Tavernas and The Ancient Monuments. We won't miss this blog because as you say it solves nothing and everyone has closed minds anyway. By the way what the devil happened to that feisty piece of work kiwilegs, your great friend? Last I heard she was visiting relatives in The USA and then I had a strange feeling she came back I suspected as Trudy Victoria but nothing from either of them for ages. I miss their one sided banter. Nothing will happen on the political front while The MPs are away on holiday so I'm sure we won't be missing anything vital.
Complain about this comment
Re #332 grandantidote
Re my #327, I can't even remember the sex of the Labour candidate let alone his or her name. In that part of Cheshire, even in those days (the 2 '74 elections), the Liberals usually came 2nd and Labour a poor 3rd.
Re my #331, I'm sorry you feel that way about someone who is always prepared to speak out for what he believes in, unlike many of his colleagues. I also have a great deal of respect for Dennis Skinner, but share fewer of his views.
Complain about this comment
319/328 whatthewhy
If you look under sheep. In your bumper book of animals I doubt you will find
'sheep: 2 ducks that think alike'. That would be silly!. I would stop using wikipedia if I was you.
You say Labour supporters have a herd mentality and Conservatives have individual thoughts. That's weird. we lefties(in comparison to most of you) are in a tiny minority with our one name each on here. If we followed a herd would we not start to agree with you?
I also disagree about your original thought theory. Conservatives are always on here repeating the same rubbish from the big Conservative book of anti labour facts. spouting figures that cannot be verified. How do they know all this stuff? is it true?
Complain about this comment
# 321
When I wrote "'inherent contradictions between political aspirations" I meant to say that England tends towards a capitalistic society, whereas Scotland is broadly to the socialist political left in the Scandinavian tradition.
If you accept this broad-brush premise, which is supported by voting patterns in England and Scotland, then the difficulty in devising political policies that both countries would support are fairly obvious.
Hence my assertion that fully independent England and Scotland would be more easily governable entities because the inherent contradictions would have been resolved by separation.
Regarding ''their political torpor', referring to the English, I simply mean that the English, especially compared to the Scots, show very little interest in political matters, and do seem to be prepared to accept being pushed around by politicians to a surprising extend.
I have some theories as to why this is the case, but - clue - most folk in England are PAYE employees - the mindset is then naturally 'compliant'.
Complain about this comment
335 browndov, Dennis Skinner now thats a different kettle of fish it would be nice to stumble into a bar somewhere and listen to a conversation between those two,I dont mean a intoxicated stumble.
Complain about this comment
dhw:
Im pretty sure it was The Conservative bloggers on here that were being accused by yours truly of being sheep. Stop trying to turn the tables. Read back through the threads and you'll see what I mean.
Complain about this comment
Re #338 grandantidote
I'd have agreed before the health Nazis (of all parties) banned smoking in all bars.
I'd buy them both a print to have a listen anywhere with a decent garden.
Complain about this comment
339 waldorf29
Really! How interesting. Maybe Sheep are as varied as the rest of us in their voting habits.
As for looking far back through my posts suddenly and for no apparent reason. You seem a little too keen. As have 2? others? before you.
Complain about this comment
341:
Not you you muppet. I find most of your posts perfectly reasonable. I was referring to your good friend GA. Otherwise known as yours truly and always harping on about the so called herd instinct inspired "Torygraph" reading, lacking a mind of their own, manic, baseless argument, idiotic, Eton educated, policy bereft DC brigade. It's beginning to wear a bit thin!
Complain about this comment
Glasgow East anyone?
Complain about this comment
# 343
"By-elections come, by-elections go".
Another standard quote from the politicians toolkit.
In this case though, I believe we are witnessing the last days of the 'Union'.
Complain about this comment
Re #344 JohnConstable
I think you're right and the names of Bliar and Brown deserve all the "credit".
Not only have they moved the Labour Party somewhere to the right of the Tories, they have brought the union to the brink of destruction in a way Mrs T never could.
We're left now with Brown cowering in the No.10 bunker "listening" on, er to, us all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
When you are broke there's only one fix-cost reduction.
All budgets for all departments except for the military and areas effecting old age pensions etc. should be slashed by 10-15%.
The cost of Government should be the first priority by scrapping all the qangos,think tanks and highly paid consultants and the Ministers should sit down with their senior civil servants to find ways of reducing costs by improving business performances of their respective departments.
This is the way the private sector operate because the private shareholders order them to.So what good for the private sector should be good for the public sector where the shareholder(taxpayers) should demand the cost reductions necessary to stabilise the economy.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS