The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[snowychap]

Edited September 25, 2015 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

Bit of a glimpse into life behind the curtain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34429233

'Best-paid col ever'

A copy of an email seen by Newsnight reveals that the mayor of London specifically committed to avoid writing about Europe in his Daily Telegraph column during conference week.

In the email sent on 29 September 2011, the mayor wrote: "Did deal with George. He gives us £93m for cops. I don't write about euro in Monday Tel and muck up his speech. It's the best-paid col ever."

City Hall had been seeking £93m from the Treasury because it would allow the city to employ more police officers at the end of his term than London had employed at the start.

[meregreen]

Cameron on Andrew Marr show. Telling lies about the impact on working people of the tax credit cuts. IDS and Cameron vying with each other on who can be the most evasive, duplicitous, bastard in Westminster.

[MakemineVanilla]

David Willetts was in the Times yesterday writing that 'when the reductions in tax credits start hitting purses and wallets next April there is real risk it could turn sour as some of those hard-working families politicians love realise they are heavy losers. Too many people will see their work incentives fall'  

So not all Tories see it the same way.

[snowychap]

It'll be interesting to see the detail behind the latest bit of 'localism/decentralization' from the Tories.

An extract from a blog at The Economist:

What Mr Osborne is saying, then, is: allow the failing places to fail, but help people move to the boomtowns. Mothball Wolverhampton, Blackpool and Great Yarmouth and make it easier for Leeds, Milton Keynes and Cambridge (not to mention London and Manchester) to build bypasses, new railway stations, housing estates, tramlinks and cycle lanes. Why? Britain's strength lies in city-based clusters of service industries, many employing university graduates; such places, in other words, possess the alchemical mix that allows them to capture the advantages of globalisation. Where places are failing it is usually because they are too small, too out of the way or too low-skilled. In government Labour's answer was to let the boomtowns boom, cream off the benefit in taxes and pass it down to places without an invite to the party. Mr Osborne's answer is different: work with the grain of economic change, not against it. Pump up the places doing well and help people in the places doing less well to relocate there and throw themselves into the forwards churn of globalisation, rather than merely compensating them for it. This carries the additional benefit of raising the national growth rate (research suggests that the biggest single reason for the gap in GDP per capita between America and Europe is that the former has more big cities); in an interview with Prospect, Jim O'Neill, a former banker now in the chancellor's ministerial team, estimated that focusing on the big cities would "translate into an additional 0.2 per cent of GDP growth on average per year up to 2030." Much of the broader thinking behind the move is articulated in this paper from Policy Exchange (Mr Osborne's favourite think-tank) in 2008.

 

Edited October 5, 2015 by snowychap

[darrenm]

It'll be interesting to see the detail behind the latest bit of 'localism/decentralization' from the Tories.

An extract from a blog at The Economist:

What Mr Osborne is saying, then, is: allow the failing places to fail, but help people move to the boomtowns. Mothball Wolverhampton, Blackpool and Great Yarmouth and make it easier for Leeds, Milton Keynes and Cambridge (not to mention London and Manchester) to build bypasses, new railway stations, housing estates, tramlinks and cycle lanes. Why? Britain's strength lies in city-based clusters of service industries, many employing university graduates; such places, in other words, possess the alchemical mix that allows them to capture the advantages of globalisation. Where places are failing it is usually because they are too small, too out of the way or too low-skilled. In government Labour's answer was to let the boomtowns boom, cream off the benefit in taxes and pass it down to places without an invite to the party. Mr Osborne's answer is different: work with the grain of economic change, not against it. Pump up the places doing well and help people in the places doing less well to relocate there and throw themselves into the forwards churn of globalisation, rather than merely compensating them for it. This carries the additional benefit of raising the national growth rate (research suggests that the biggest single reason for the gap in GDP per capita between America and Europe is that the former has more big cities); in an interview with Prospect, Jim O'Neill, a former banker now in the chancellor's ministerial team, estimated that focusing on the big cities would "translate into an additional 0.2 per cent of GDP growth on average per year up to 2030." Much of the broader thinking behind the move is articulated in this paper from Policy Exchange (Mr Osborne's favourite think-tank) in 2008.

 

Almost reasonable. The problem is, once you mothball some failing places, they never have chance to become thriving centres in future. So when the currently successful places inevitably fall off, there's nothing there ready to take over.

Today's Leeds, Manchester and Cambridge will be tomorrow's Rhyl, Wolverhampton and Coventry.

[Xann]

In between getting egged and spat on at their conference, the Tories have been discussing who next to take money from, to pay the debt on funds that never existed.

Now they're looking at the old to pick up the bad bankers gambling debts.

Why? Well obviously because they'll likely be dead or simply not remember who nobbled them at the next election.

Well, we'll remember you *****.

Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

[chrisp65]

it's deja vu all over again

they decided to close my home town last time under thatcher and it's still recovering, best of luck to whoever is next in line for a kicking from the nasty bastard party

[tonyh29]

In between getting egged and spat on at their conference, the Tories have been discussing who next to take money from, to pay the debt on funds that never existed.

Now they're looking at the old to pick up the bad bankers gambling debts.

Why? Well obviously because they'll likely be dead or simply not remember who nobbled them at the next election.

Well, we'll remember you *****.

Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

 

 TPA have always been about cutting back the state  and making outlandish comments  ... They have also attended  Labour Party conferences as well as  UKIP conferences  in the past  ..... and now suddenly these are Tory policies and you will remember the Tories for it  even though it hasn't happened  ...

Presumably you wont forget them for stopping free school meals whilst you are at it  as that hasn't happened yet either

 

[Xann]

.... and now suddenly these are Tory policies...

Are they?

Where does it say that?

The post mentions discussion of targeting another vulnerable sector of society.

Of course they'd never actually do that... Oh, hang on...

[tonyh29]

.... and now suddenly these are Tory policies...

Are they?

Where does it say that?

The post mentions discussion of targeting another vulnerable sector of society.

Of course they'd never actually do that... Oh, hang on...

well , the bit where you say "The Tories have been discussing " is a tad misleading   ... it should have been the TPA have been discussing , yes it was at the Tory conference , yes there were probably some Tories present  but  I also went to a game of football with Blandy once but  that doesn't make it a thread deleters convention ...

Also you could have posted it in the economic thread rather than the Tory one  and made it less misleading

[Xann]

Er, no. They are discussing massive cuts.

 

They're just wondering where they'll get the least comeback.

Meanwhile there's a bunch of blokes in the hall saying "Pick on the confused".

[snowychap]

Almost reasonable.

Not sure if serious.

[Dr_Pangloss]

It'll be interesting to see the detail behind the latest bit of 'localism/decentralization' from the Tories.

An extract from a blog at The Economist:

What Mr Osborne is saying, then, is: allow the failing places to fail, but help people move to the boomtowns. Mothball Wolverhampton, Blackpool and Great Yarmouth and make it easier for Leeds, Milton Keynes and Cambridge (not to mention London and Manchester) to build bypasses, new railway stations, housing estates, tramlinks and cycle lanes. Why? Britain's strength lies in city-based clusters of service industries, many employing university graduates; such places, in other words, possess the alchemical mix that allows them to capture the advantages of globalisation. Where places are failing it is usually because they are too small, too out of the way or too low-skilled. In government Labour's answer was to let the boomtowns boom, cream off the benefit in taxes and pass it down to places without an invite to the party. Mr Osborne's answer is different: work with the grain of economic change, not against it. Pump up the places doing well and help people in the places doing less well to relocate there and throw themselves into the forwards churn of globalisation, rather than merely compensating them for it. This carries the additional benefit of raising the national growth rate (research suggests that the biggest single reason for the gap in GDP per capita between America and Europe is that the former has more big cities); in an interview with Prospect, Jim O'Neill, a former banker now in the chancellor's ministerial team, estimated that focusing on the big cities would "translate into an additional 0.2 per cent of GDP growth on average per year up to 2030." Much of the broader thinking behind the move is articulated in this paper from Policy Exchange (Mr Osborne's favourite think-tank) in 2008.

 

It's not socially palatable and will lead to giant, impoverished ghettos. As far as that 0.2% boost in growth pa, I'm sure that was done in an extremely robust way, I wonder what the standard error of that estimate was? Perhaps enough to include a rate of 0% I'd suggest. 

 

[darrenm]

Almost reasonable.

Not sure if serious.

Almost is quite a subjective term.

[snowychap]

Tax credit cuts promote hard work, says Jeremy Hunt

The government is right to press ahead with cuts to tax credits - despite claims millions will be worse off - because the UK must become as hard working as China, Jeremy Hunt has said.

The health secretary said the cuts - combined with a higher minimum wage - would send out the right "cultural signal" to low paid workers.

And he said he did not "buy" claims people would be left out of pocket.

...

speaking to Times columnist Danny Finkelstein at a fringe meeting at the Conservative conference, Mr Hunt said: "We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal.

"My wife is Chinese and if we want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years time there is a pretty difficult question that we have to answer which is, essentially, are we going to be a country which is prepared to work hard in a way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in a way that Americans are prepared to work hard?

"And that is about creating a culture where work is at the heart of our success."

'Dignity'

He rejected claims that low paid workers will simply be worse off in "hard cash" terms as a result of the changes, because many will not be affected by the National Minimum Wage.

"The hard cash argument, I don't entirely buy because I don't think it takes into account the dynamic effects, I don't think it takes into account the extra hours that some people work.

"I don't want to pretend that it won't be very challenging but I do believe that moving to a culture where work pays and we are trying to help people be independent and stand on their own two feet is the most important thing we can do for people on low incomes."

He said that under Conservative philosophy how you earned money was as important as how much you earned - and not having to rely on state handouts promoted "dignity" and "independence".

... bit more on link

So Mr Hunt doesn't 'buy' the fact that people will be worse off because they may be able to work more in order to make up for the shortfall? An idiot or an utter arse.

 

[chrisp65]

I heard that earlier. It put me at ease to be honest. There's no need to be worse off you working poor people, just do more hours. Thanks, Hunt.

Utter arse. 

I guess if you're the son of Admiral Sir Nicholas Hunt, Charterhouse educated and earn a six figure salary it can be difficult to empathise with the people outside the tory conference ring of steel.

[meregreen]

Jeremy Hunt. A man who wouldn't know what a hard days work is if his life depended on it. Typical Tory Twunt.

[tonyh29]

I rest my case 

[snowychap]

...on the heads of the impoverished?

Edited October 5, 2015 by snowychap