Bolitics The New Condem Government

[thetrees]

What are they going to spend? Their wages? Do you want a loaf of bred to be £5 because the public aren't spending? It's crucial people spend more to sustain the Economy in this Country.

Overall, these cuts won't make a big difference, only harder for the people at the bottom. We need bigger diverse thinking in the long term.

I'm not sure why my posting should suggest that I want a loaf of bread to be £5, but there you go :shock:

Curiously, as you touch on food, one aspect of the 'global financial crisis', and particularly the crash of the Euro, is that food prices are going to go through the roof.

We could always hope that Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda et all cut their margins to be in line with European and the US supermarkets, but I won't be holding my breath.

[leviramsey]

What are they going to spend? Their wages? Do you want a loaf of bred to be £5 because the public aren't spending? It's crucial people spend more to sustain the Economy in this Country.

Overall, these cuts won't make a big difference, only harder for the people at the bottom. We need bigger diverse thinking in the long term.

The alternatives are (or some combination of these):

* government spending cuts, likely leading to a deeper recession but also creating a scenario in a few years time where prosperity returns

* raising taxes, which, barring a massive raise in VAT (probably to about 30% or 20% VAT with no zero rating) probably won't result in a revenue increase sufficient to pay expenses*; pretty much any tax besides VAT or possibly council tax will see entirely legal avoidance spike (e.g. not performing the actions that incur the tax, etc.)

* devaluation, which is effectively the same thing as a massive VAT rise with no zero rating

* default/debt restructuring, essentially the UK declaring bankruptcy

* discover a large quantity of some valuable mineral or other

Only the first or last option is likely to see any price stability at all.

*: the USA, which is one of the comparatively few countries without a VAT provides a great example of this: regardless of the tax regime in place, post-WWII tax collections have stayed at almost exactly the same level relative to GDP, whether the top income tax (the greatest single contributor to revenue) rate was 35% or 90%.

[leviramsey]

Just for Ian

The prime minister is moving so fast that what seemed unthinkable just weeks ago must be considered a strong possibility at some point in the next few years: a merger between David Cameron’s majority wing of the Conservative Party and Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems.

It’s all changing so quickly right now, as I was reminded at the weekend. We drove past one of those now frayed Tory posters from the seemingly long distant election, this one featuring a grinning Gordon Brown (”I doubled the national debt. Let me do it again. Vote for me blah blah”). It looked as though it was a relic from a lost age, another era entirely. An era of Gordon Brown, an independent Conservative party and “old politics.” Consider that it was only six weeks or so ago that those posters went up.

Having improvised a temporary realignment of British politics in the intervening period so audaciously, how much further does David Cameron intend to go on his journey? How will he attempt to make permanent his temporary gains?

At the moment he has almost no obstacles in his way — he is in the untouchable phase of his premiership. So whatever he plans next for his stunned party, he’d best be relatively quick to take advantage.

He is encountering some criticism for his brave or reckless (take your pick) approach to party management. But I doubt that will worry him much now he is dug in deep at Number 10.

And I doubt anyway that there is much he can do to win round some of the right-wing enemies he set out to make on his own side with his wildly enthusiastic coalition building and then his 1922 Committee reform. His party managers succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in the latter case, if creating a small but hardened core of implacable opponents was the goal. He should hear what some of his MPs call him now — and no, not just the usual suspects.

He shows signs of realizing that elements of what he has signed up to are not, once the novelty of the new politics has worn off, likely to prove popular with many of the millions who voted Conservative on May 6. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says he is relaxed about the tax burden. He wants “fairer” taxation (don’t we all, easy to advocate yet hard to define) but he doesn’t want the general tax burden reduced from its current high. Cameron moved quickly to say that he thinks differently and wants a lower tax burden when it is affordable. This is a big philosophical and practical divide. It is hard for a government to reduce the tax burden and also keep it the same. It will be interesting to see how in time the pair try to reconcile their two positions.

But I can’t see such distractions delaying Cameron too long in his current frame of mind. The logic of his ditching of his party’s right wing is that he sees the scope for creating a permanent force fused out of the rest of his party and the centrist elements in Clegg’s party. He seems in no mood to wait.

The question is whether what emerges later this year or next needs to be a formal merger into one party or a long-lasting working partnership between two nominally separate but intertwined parties.

I do hear pro-AV voting reform noises from Cameroon Tory MPs suggesting their leader is minded to reverse his position and back a change in the referendum he has committed himself to. The theory is that after a shift in the voting system both parties can recommend to their partner’s supporters that they give their coalition friends their second preference. The theory is that it would cut out Labour and create a Lib-Con majority pretty much in perpetuity.

Talks between the parties on how a partnership for general and local elections could work will be required. Try doing it in the teeth of deep cuts and potential unpopularity for both parties in several years time and it may be too late. Internal critics in both parties may be strong enough to resist. But in the middle of the honeymoon the leaders stand a better chance of engineering at least the outline of an electoral pact.

And why, from Cameron’s point of view, hang around on all this? Cameron and his guru Steve Hilton must realise how much they have gained for themselves by moving fast in recent weeks. So why slow down now and allow their Tory critics to regroup and get back within shouting distance?

Will they calculate that is better to formalize the Liberal Conservative interest as a party or formal electoral alliance soon? Or at least start laying the ground for it to happen several years down the line. The Lib Dems would shed some left-wingers to Labour. And where would the Tory right go?

One important indicator to look out for is the planning around the party conference season this autumn. Watch out for suggestions that Deputy PM Clegg is going to address the Tories, and that in exchange Cameron will speak in front of the Lib-Dems. If they start testing out how they do in front of each other’s wings of the new Liberal Conservative movement, you know the game is afoot even sooner than imagined.

It should be noted that, by circulation, the Wall Street Journal is the biggest quality newspaper in Rupert's stable. Just sayin'...

[wiganvillain]

We could always hope that Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda et all cut their margins to be in line with European and the US supermarkets

[Richard]

Great idea lets not tell anyone the true scope of Labour incompetence. WHo will that serve? No one but Liebour.

I have been humming D Ream Things can only get better for the last few hours

We know the true scope of the Economy, why do we need to be forced to hear it again and again? We need people to spend, if they don't spend the Economy won't grow, and scaring people will rise prices and make the standard of living much more tougher for the people at the bottom of the ladder, like me and my family.

What will cutting jobs gain? A little figure on a sheet of paper; people's lives are so much more important than a few digits.

Well firstly I would argue that we do not actually know the true scope as it was mostly covered up by Liebour. But that aside, if we do know the true scope why would telling people again constitute scareing them?

How can people spend money they haven't got by the way, I think that was what got us into the mess in the first place actually and that will not sort the economy, it needs fundamental correction at source.

In addition I always thought that the laws of supply and demand meant that if demand went down so did price, but that is by the by.

Cutting jobs, well again I would argue that there has been a massive increase in the number of public sector jobs, and that was unsustainable. The public sector, IMO, is probably heading for a recession of their own but as I say the growth there was not sustainable. Who pays for the public sector? Are they wealth creators or wealth users?

Yes people's lives are much more important but I am afraid that is people think that everyone can be shielded from the affects of Liebours recession correction programme that has put us into this mess, they are being naive in the extreme.

The debt is so huge that just cuts or just tax increases alone will not touch it.

I , personally, feel that even a combination of both wont make much difference but we will have to see on that front

It comes to something when the interest on our debt is basically bigger then a govt departments spending budget. Do you think that is the right priority?

[snowychap]

The public sector, IMO, is probably heading for a recession of their own but as I say the growth there was not sustainable. Who pays for the public sector? Are they wealth creators or wealth users?

Does the public sector exist in isolation?

A public sector recession of any substance might well transalte in to a recession, full stop.

The 'wealth creators/wealth users' thing is exceptionally divisive and doesn't really take in to account the transactions between the public and private sectors, does it, mate?

I remember seeing a bloke from Tie UK on the box around election time saying how important government (public sector) spending was for small businesses - just after he agreed with a CBI bod saying that the deficit needed to be reduced quickly. Had to chuckle.

[avfc89]

Richard, the only real way we rectify the Debt is by creating useful products and exporting them to other Countries; like I've said, we need bigger diverse thinking long term about Industry in this Country. Simply cutting and chopping items won't make a huge difference to the Economy, we need to create something useful and effective.

[jonno_2004]

Richard, the only real way we rectify the Debt is by creating useful products and exporting them to other Countries; like I've said, we need bigger diverse thinking long term about Industry in this Country. Simply cutting and chopping items won't make a huge difference to the Economy, we need to create something useful and effective.

Which is a lot easier said than done.

[avfc89]

Richard, the only real way we rectify the Debt is by creating useful products and exporting them to other Countries; like I've said, we need bigger diverse thinking long term about Industry in this Country. Simply cutting and chopping items won't make a huge difference to the Economy, we need to create something useful and effective.

Which is a lot easier said than done.

True, true. I supposed we could learn from other nations tho.

[Clarry]

Well it's begun, 400 jobs to be cut in Lambeth Council, 215 in Children's Services. And this is without being told to make cuts by the government.

Which begs a few questions. If my job gets cut, have all I've done in the past 5 years been a lie? Have Lambeth's improved results entirely been down to them?

Could be worse if "outstanding" schools choose the Academy route. Have more schools become "outstanding" without the aid of Local Authority "interference"? What about the schools left behind? Where do they get their support from?

Is 43, too old to become an Adult movie star?

[tonyh29]

Is 43, too old to become an Adult movie star?

I'm sure you could get a job as Ron Jeremy's fluffer

[kidlewis]

Is 43, too old to become an Adult movie star?

I'm sure you could get a job as Ron Jeremy's fluffer

don't get fluffers anymore, unless you can transform into a viagra pill.

Perhaps you could start a new category of DILF movies

[Gringo]

well it didn't take long for the mask to slip....

Of course blair introduced whole new ligislation to get rid of Haws, but now the Mayor of London, after a full year in office has decided that now is a good time to remove what was an embarrassment to the previous govt, so that it's not an eyesore fot the new one.

Boris Johnson plans to clear Parliament Square peace camp

High court action sought for trespass on day coalition government pledges to restore rights to non-violent protest

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, has instructed his officials to seek legal action to remove peace protesters camping outside the Houses of Parliament.

The Conservative mayor issued a statement outlining his decision to apply to the high court to begin legal proceedings for trespass on the same day that David Cameron's coalition government announced plans to "restore rights to non-violent protest" as part of its 18-month legislative programme.

Last year, Cameron vowed to remove the long-standing peace camp in Parliament Square if the Conservatives came to power. But this was before he teamed up in government with the Liberal Democrats, who have long defended the right to peaceful protest at the location.

In an unconnected incident, the veteran anti-war protester Brian Haw was arrested as police carried out security checks outside parliament today before the Queen's speech.

As Cameron's government paved the way for restoring rights to protest, which were removed under the Labour government, Johnson announced his intention to clamp down on demonstrators on the site opposite parliament.

A spokeswoman for City Hall said: "Parliament Square is a world heritage site and top tourist attraction that is visited by thousands of people and broadcast around the world each day. The mayor respects the right to demonstrate – however, the scale and impact of the protest is now doing considerable damage to the square and preventing its peaceful use by other Londoners including those who may wish to have an authorised protest. As a result he has given GLA officers the authority to apply to the high court to begin legal proceedings for trespass."

Fellow Conservatives hailed Johnson's decision to act – a move they insisted was not at odds with the coalition government's commitment on the right to protest.

The statement coincided with the arrest of two protesters, including Haw, earlier today. A witness reported seeing Haw being handcuffed by officers opposite the Houses of Parliament, where he and other peace campaigners have maintained a round-the-clock protest. Another protester at the camp, Barbara Tucker, was also arrested.

Haw set up camp in June 2001 in a one-man protest against war and foreign policy – initially, the sanctions against Iraq. He said he was inspired to take up his vigil after seeing the images and information produced by the Mariam appeal, an anti-sanctions campaign.

The father of seven has successfully resisted repeated legal attempts to remove him, conducted both by Tory-led Westminster city council and the Labour government. The site has become more crowded with the arrival of environmental protesters who set up tents four weeks ago.

Joined up govt in action!

[drat01]

So now the bullying actions of the new ConDem gvmt are stating who goes on Question time panel? - amazing! - after the changes proposed to the way Parliament is run, the changes demanded over their own 1922 cmtee and now this, you can see that Cameron and Clegg are total hypocrites

Edit:

Ah I see that Cameron is trying to make amends by getting a severe grilling from GMTV!

[snowychap]

stating who goes on Question time panel

Well, they tried but it appears they were put rather firmly in their place by the BBC and, specifically, those in charge of Question Time.

I doubt Downing Street were too happy to have Davis on This Week, either.

I wonder whether they'll throw a bit of a wobbly and only let junior ministers out of the box for (BBC) news programmes for a while.

[Gringo]

So now the bullying actions of the new ConDem gvmt are stating who goes on Question time panel? - amazing! - after the changes proposed to the way Parliament is run, the changes demanded over their own 1922 cmtee and now this, you can see that Cameron and Clegg are total hypocrites

Edit:

Ah I see that Cameron is trying to make amends by getting a severe grilling from GMTV!

Cganging the rules on dissolution of parliament, changing the rules on the 1922 comittee and changing the rules on who QT can have on the show.

And the tories complain about mandy & campbells' control freakery.

[LondonLax]

Richard, the only real way we rectify the Debt is by creating useful products and exporting them to other Countries; like I've said, we need bigger diverse thinking long term about Industry in this Country. Simply cutting and chopping items won't make a huge difference to the Economy, we need to create something useful and effective.

Which is a lot easier said than done.

True, true. I supposed we could learn from other nations tho.

You mean by paying workers £5 a day to make the stuff like they do in China?

The reason we (and other western economies) cannot make things anymore is because we have to pay the workers a liveable wage which makes our products much more expensive and no one wants to buy them.

We concentrate on making niche things we have patents for like pharmaceuticals and jet engines and make up for the lack of manufacturing by offering things like banking and financial services which emerging economies cannot reliably provide (yet).

[Clarry]

stating who goes on Question time panel

Well, they tried but it appears they were put rather firmly in their place by the BBC and, specifically, those in charge of Question Time.

I doubt Downing Street were too happy to have Davis on This Week, either.

I wonder whether they'll throw a bit of a wobbly and only let junior ministers out of the box for (BBC) news programmes for a while.

Sounds like Alex Ferguson!

[tonyh29]

the bullying actions of the new ConDem gvmt are stating who goes on Question time panel?

Bullying :shock: is this the new labour buzz word , seems to be cropping up a heck of late from it' s supporters

First I heard of the incident was this morning on the 5 live phone in .. but the vast majority of callers said the governemnt were right to not take part in the show with Campbell .. he not being a labour front bencher and never having been elected to office

I thought Liebour would have put Campbell and his ilk out to pasture by now , new era of politics and all that .. it's clear that the public don't want to see the likes of him and Mandelson on their TV's anymore

changing the rules on who QT can have on the show.

i thought it was a request not an order or a change of rules ?

[Clarry]

Bullying :shock: is this the new labour buzz word , seems to be cropping up a heck of late from it' s supporters

First I heard of the incident was this morning on the 5 live phone in .. but the vast majority of callers said the governemnt were right to not take part in the show with Campbell .. he not being a labour front bencher and never having been elected to office

I thought Liebour would have put Campbell and his ilk out to pasture by now , new era of politics and all that .. it's clear that the public don't want to see the likes of him and Mandelson on their TV's anymore

You're slipping!!!